I'm sure there are more than a few reasons the used games market is good, but there's one in particular I want to point out. The used market encourages quality.
The games you're least likely to find used are the games of highest and longest-lasting quality. If a game is fun, polished, dynamic and offers lasting value through replayability or the sheer scope of experience, then most buyers will hold onto their copies.
The games most often found used are the ones that are mediocre, short, redundant, buggy, etc.
I like the industry's trend toward DLC and exclusive content for new copies. But I hope used game sales stick around for decades to come, because that market encourages developers to aim higher than they might otherwise have to.
Showing posts with label dynamics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dynamics. Show all posts
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
healing grenades
As you might expect, I'm reading and watching a lot on E3 news. I might offer some impressions later. For now, I've got two words for you:
healing grenades!
Dynamics are the name of the game, so why not make healing a bit more interesting? Imagine a grenade or vial of healing potion that you must smash against the ground. Throw it down at your feet and it heals you. Throw it by some allies and all in the area of effect are healed. But throw it too close to an enemy... and your enemy is healed.
This creates opportunities for many memorable moments. If your fellow player or AI companion is toe-to-toe with an enemy and hurting, you can try to aim your throw behind your ally so it heals him and not the enemy as well. If the fighters turn at just the wrong moment, you might heal the wrong person, or both of them, or neither. There might even be a possibility that the grenade can be batted while in the air... flying across the battlefield to land who knows where.
Even more, healing grenades might react differently to different objects. They might burn particular enemies. They might explode when they touch a particular metal, hurting friends or foes alike. If two healing grenades hit one spot simultaneously, the healing effect might be exponentially increased.
The basic idea is that, like the sticky grenade in Halo, there are countless possibilities that make each counter feel fresh and potentially surprising. Healing grenades might not fit a particular game, but all games should include at least one dynamic like this.
healing grenades!
Dynamics are the name of the game, so why not make healing a bit more interesting? Imagine a grenade or vial of healing potion that you must smash against the ground. Throw it down at your feet and it heals you. Throw it by some allies and all in the area of effect are healed. But throw it too close to an enemy... and your enemy is healed.
This creates opportunities for many memorable moments. If your fellow player or AI companion is toe-to-toe with an enemy and hurting, you can try to aim your throw behind your ally so it heals him and not the enemy as well. If the fighters turn at just the wrong moment, you might heal the wrong person, or both of them, or neither. There might even be a possibility that the grenade can be batted while in the air... flying across the battlefield to land who knows where.
Even more, healing grenades might react differently to different objects. They might burn particular enemies. They might explode when they touch a particular metal, hurting friends or foes alike. If two healing grenades hit one spot simultaneously, the healing effect might be exponentially increased.
The basic idea is that, like the sticky grenade in Halo, there are countless possibilities that make each counter feel fresh and potentially surprising. Healing grenades might not fit a particular game, but all games should include at least one dynamic like this.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
cheap trust
One reason I'm looking forward to another Deus Ex sequel is the possibility of trust gameplay that's actually meaningful.
Too often, players are put in situations where the protagonist is asked to trust a character while being all but certain that character is indeed trustworthy. There's no real question that the character is trustworthy. There's not even a possibility that circumstances might remove power from the character to keep his/her promises. The character just says "trust me" and player automatically answers "sure".
It's nice to be surprised by betrayal sometimes. Players have to feel like they're really taking a chance in order for those decisions to trust to seem important.
Too often, players are put in situations where the protagonist is asked to trust a character while being all but certain that character is indeed trustworthy. There's no real question that the character is trustworthy. There's not even a possibility that circumstances might remove power from the character to keep his/her promises. The character just says "trust me" and player automatically answers "sure".
It's nice to be surprised by betrayal sometimes. Players have to feel like they're really taking a chance in order for those decisions to trust to seem important.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Red Dead surprise
As I was playing Red Dead Redemption today, I happened across a woman crying beside a dead man. By his limp hand was a revolver. The game only gives players a short amount of time to respond to strangers in need. It seemed I had missed my opportunity to help this man fight off bandits. He had failed to defend himself and died.
I stood for a few seconds watching the woman cry, and I turned away. Then I heard a gunshot. I spun back around, thinking it was a trick (like previous ploys NPCs had used on me) -- the woman must have killed the man and then pretended to be grieving so I would let down my guard. But no, the woman was dead. She had indeed been grieving, and now she had committed suicide with her fallen husband's revolver.
Kudos to Rockstar for creating a very memorable game-story experience.
I stood for a few seconds watching the woman cry, and I turned away. Then I heard a gunshot. I spun back around, thinking it was a trick (like previous ploys NPCs had used on me) -- the woman must have killed the man and then pretended to be grieving so I would let down my guard. But no, the woman was dead. She had indeed been grieving, and now she had committed suicide with her fallen husband's revolver.
Kudos to Rockstar for creating a very memorable game-story experience.
Friday, November 20, 2009
learning curves, options and challenges
Though I'm not a fan of every addition in Assassin's Creed 2, it is a lot of fun overall. In the beginning, it felt slow and confined. I knew that it would pick up and set me free eventually, but it definitely kept me on training wheels for far too long and held back much of what ultimately makes it a great game.
Learning curves make sense. It also makes sense that more complex games need longer learning curves.
But when your game has a lot to learn, the answer is not to restrict players to a little bit at a time. Rather, offer the player many options at any given time and restrict only how much is expected of the player by challenges he or she faces. Offer elite challenges, but only in such a way that they are clearly bonuses and not necessary to progress in core areas.
It's like teaching students. If one student is already somewhat familiar with a topic or picks it up quicker than other students, the solution is not to silence that student and prevent him from offering what he can, so that other students don't feel pressured. Instead, the solution is to allow that student to surpass normal requirements and provide special challenges that other students can happily skip and forget.
Players should never feel like they're held back... that they're offered too few options and opportunities. Players should never feel like they're waiting for "the real fun" to begin.
Making learning curves malleable enough to suit multiple playstyles and levels of experience should involve more tweaking of challenges and expectations than of opportunities.
Learning curves make sense. It also makes sense that more complex games need longer learning curves.
But when your game has a lot to learn, the answer is not to restrict players to a little bit at a time. Rather, offer the player many options at any given time and restrict only how much is expected of the player by challenges he or she faces. Offer elite challenges, but only in such a way that they are clearly bonuses and not necessary to progress in core areas.
It's like teaching students. If one student is already somewhat familiar with a topic or picks it up quicker than other students, the solution is not to silence that student and prevent him from offering what he can, so that other students don't feel pressured. Instead, the solution is to allow that student to surpass normal requirements and provide special challenges that other students can happily skip and forget.
Players should never feel like they're held back... that they're offered too few options and opportunities. Players should never feel like they're waiting for "the real fun" to begin.
Making learning curves malleable enough to suit multiple playstyles and levels of experience should involve more tweaking of challenges and expectations than of opportunities.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
replayable quests
If there's one aspect of games that rarely has much replay value, it's missions/quests/jobs. At best, some games allow you to choose between dialog options or one of a few scenarios, but those dialog lines and scenarios are strictly scripted and play out basically the same way every time.
Let loose your iron grip, game writers!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: adventure is about the unexpected. Adventures often begin with well-defined goals, but they absolutely always involve unforeseen events and events of chance.
The best path for stories in games is reflection, not determination. Rather than determine exactly what the player will experience, provide a solid setting with many dynamics (including dynamic NPC choices). Then record and present special moments (not entirely scripted moments) for reflection at the end of the game or levels, areas, etc.
Setting and reflection, how events are viewed and fitted together, are the key elements of story in games. Don't feed me the story. Let me live it!
Let loose your iron grip, game writers!
I've said it before and I'll say it again: adventure is about the unexpected. Adventures often begin with well-defined goals, but they absolutely always involve unforeseen events and events of chance.
The best path for stories in games is reflection, not determination. Rather than determine exactly what the player will experience, provide a solid setting with many dynamics (including dynamic NPC choices). Then record and present special moments (not entirely scripted moments) for reflection at the end of the game or levels, areas, etc.
Setting and reflection, how events are viewed and fitted together, are the key elements of story in games. Don't feed me the story. Let me live it!
Thursday, October 15, 2009
enemies with personality
One of the reasons I expect Borderlands to be a lot of fun is the dynamic comments that give individual enemies personalities:
The amusing outbursts of enemies makes them more than just faceless meatbags. The Halo series has proven how effective this can be.
Giving enemies dynamic outbursts does two things. First, it adds a personal dimension to combat, making it feel like your actually fighting individuals and not the Borg. Second, it adds variation and replay value. It can make one enemy feel slightly different from another despite both using the same model and the same AI.
This isn't only possible with human enemies. Individual dogs of the same breed can have different barks. Individual skaags or other beasts could have different growls, screeches, etc. Voice variation with animals and monsters has an effect similar to that with humans.
Nor does personalizing individual enemies have to be done only through modeling, AI, and voicing. There's also animations. Slightly different hand motions, ways of walking, relaxed and defensive stances, and so on can make enemies which are otherwise the same feel like true individuals.
Every aspect of NPCs changes the experience.
The amusing outbursts of enemies makes them more than just faceless meatbags. The Halo series has proven how effective this can be.
Giving enemies dynamic outbursts does two things. First, it adds a personal dimension to combat, making it feel like your actually fighting individuals and not the Borg. Second, it adds variation and replay value. It can make one enemy feel slightly different from another despite both using the same model and the same AI.
This isn't only possible with human enemies. Individual dogs of the same breed can have different barks. Individual skaags or other beasts could have different growls, screeches, etc. Voice variation with animals and monsters has an effect similar to that with humans.
Nor does personalizing individual enemies have to be done only through modeling, AI, and voicing. There's also animations. Slightly different hand motions, ways of walking, relaxed and defensive stances, and so on can make enemies which are otherwise the same feel like true individuals.
Every aspect of NPCs changes the experience.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
open world driving
I've never been a big fan of racing, but I do enjoy driving gameplay. Believe it or not, play-driving does not necessarily mean racing.
Track racing is fun once through, but there are so few dynamics. The setting and challenge are exactly the same every time. The player has few options, so the emphasis is on performance of a strict routine. Such gameplay has poor longevity.
I've played a number of racing games, since my best friend is a vehicle fanatic. But only two have seemed open and dynamic enough to coax me into buying them: Need For Speed: Most Wanted and FUEL. I enjoyed the former more, and traded both in.
The beauty of NFS: MW is three-fold. First, there's an open city with a variety of challenges (sharp curves, barriers, etc), shortcuts, and road types for exploration. Second, setting the game in a city with dynamic traffic adds dynamics to races and exploration alike. And third, the cop chase gameplay adds a dynamic, open-world challenge that doesn't distract from the core driving gameplay (as Full Auto-style weapons and Wheelman-style stunts can do).
FUEL really shines when you're dodging trees and jumping obstacles at high speed in a motorbike over varying terrain. It's a thrill I haven't found anywhere else. But, vast as its world is, FUEL becomes redundant quickly and offers poor competition. Varying, meaningful weather was a great promise, but a failed one.
Anyway, judging by the sparsity of such games, publishers seem to believe that gamers who don't like track racing don't appreciate realistic vehicles and vehicle physics. That's not the case. Just because we don't like marathons and drag straightaways doesn't mean we want cars with guns or cartoon go-karts (though I've got nothing against that either). Cars ≠ racing.
Many more people are interested in driving gameplay than are interested in NASCAR, Grand Prix, drift racing, drag racing, and so on. Make a driving game with good physics, a wide variety of vehicles, truly personal (rather than achievement-style) customizations, an open and dynamic world, and a variety of challenge types... and that's a game with broad appeal.
Track racing is fun once through, but there are so few dynamics. The setting and challenge are exactly the same every time. The player has few options, so the emphasis is on performance of a strict routine. Such gameplay has poor longevity.
I've played a number of racing games, since my best friend is a vehicle fanatic. But only two have seemed open and dynamic enough to coax me into buying them: Need For Speed: Most Wanted and FUEL. I enjoyed the former more, and traded both in.
The beauty of NFS: MW is three-fold. First, there's an open city with a variety of challenges (sharp curves, barriers, etc), shortcuts, and road types for exploration. Second, setting the game in a city with dynamic traffic adds dynamics to races and exploration alike. And third, the cop chase gameplay adds a dynamic, open-world challenge that doesn't distract from the core driving gameplay (as Full Auto-style weapons and Wheelman-style stunts can do).
FUEL really shines when you're dodging trees and jumping obstacles at high speed in a motorbike over varying terrain. It's a thrill I haven't found anywhere else. But, vast as its world is, FUEL becomes redundant quickly and offers poor competition. Varying, meaningful weather was a great promise, but a failed one.
Anyway, judging by the sparsity of such games, publishers seem to believe that gamers who don't like track racing don't appreciate realistic vehicles and vehicle physics. That's not the case. Just because we don't like marathons and drag straightaways doesn't mean we want cars with guns or cartoon go-karts (though I've got nothing against that either). Cars ≠ racing.
Many more people are interested in driving gameplay than are interested in NASCAR, Grand Prix, drift racing, drag racing, and so on. Make a driving game with good physics, a wide variety of vehicles, truly personal (rather than achievement-style) customizations, an open and dynamic world, and a variety of challenge types... and that's a game with broad appeal.
Monday, September 14, 2009
audio palettes
Audio designers should consider the breadth of their "palette" of sounds, similar to how artists consider the range of colors and textures they will use. The number of different audio clips does not, by itself, define the variety of sounds. How greatly the sounds vary in pitch and in texture matters as well.
Humans rely mostly on their sense of sight, which is why players are more likely to notice bland or redundant art than bland or redundant audio in a game. Many players have complained about the drab and repetitive visuals of Fallout 3. I put off buying S.T.A.L.K.E.R. largely for the same reason. Players are less likely to pinpoint their displeasure if sound effects run together, but it can also be a significant issue.
Like with art, audio should have a general style. But shake it up. The sounds of weapons shouldn't just sound cool, but also be distinct from each other. The sound of footsteps is more immersive when the player can occasionally hear a creaky board, a puddle, a bit of hard clay, etc. Shouts and exclamations, like in Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, are more interesting when players hear a variety of voice of different depth and aggressiveness.
Shake it up. Dynamics are important in everything, including sound.
Humans rely mostly on their sense of sight, which is why players are more likely to notice bland or redundant art than bland or redundant audio in a game. Many players have complained about the drab and repetitive visuals of Fallout 3. I put off buying S.T.A.L.K.E.R. largely for the same reason. Players are less likely to pinpoint their displeasure if sound effects run together, but it can also be a significant issue.
Like with art, audio should have a general style. But shake it up. The sounds of weapons shouldn't just sound cool, but also be distinct from each other. The sound of footsteps is more immersive when the player can occasionally hear a creaky board, a puddle, a bit of hard clay, etc. Shouts and exclamations, like in Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, are more interesting when players hear a variety of voice of different depth and aggressiveness.
Shake it up. Dynamics are important in everything, including sound.
Friday, August 28, 2009
combos
I somehow managed to pull off a 40-hit combo the other day in Batman: Arkham Asylum. It was glorious! It was also easy... in comparison to the combo systems of other games.
I'm usually not a fan of combo systems. That's because I have to remember well over a dozen button combinations... XXY, XXXA, X+Y then A while rolling the thumbstick from down to forward, etc.
In Arkham, one can pull off a fun and impressive combo with nothing more than well-timed presses of X and Y. If an enemy has a knife, you'll need B. If an enemy has shock baton, you'll need to double-tap A. With two-to- four buttons, I can put Jet Li to shame.
There are a few other commands that can be given: A+X to throw, Y+B to cripple, LT for a batarang. But they're unnecessary, and combat is a blast without them.
Arkham achieves this through context-sensitivity. One button activates one of dozen animations depending on how the player-character is oriented in relation to enemies and timing. Even the special moves, like throw and cripple, vary in effect or animation.
I guess, if I see a lesson in Arkham Asylum's combat system, it's this: the dynamics of combat don't all have to be controlled by the player. You don't want to cut the player out entirely or fake participation. But complex combat systems don't have to mean complex controls or instructions.
I'm usually not a fan of combo systems. That's because I have to remember well over a dozen button combinations... XXY, XXXA, X+Y then A while rolling the thumbstick from down to forward, etc.
In Arkham, one can pull off a fun and impressive combo with nothing more than well-timed presses of X and Y. If an enemy has a knife, you'll need B. If an enemy has shock baton, you'll need to double-tap A. With two-to- four buttons, I can put Jet Li to shame.
There are a few other commands that can be given: A+X to throw, Y+B to cripple, LT for a batarang. But they're unnecessary, and combat is a blast without them.
Arkham achieves this through context-sensitivity. One button activates one of dozen animations depending on how the player-character is oriented in relation to enemies and timing. Even the special moves, like throw and cripple, vary in effect or animation.
I guess, if I see a lesson in Arkham Asylum's combat system, it's this: the dynamics of combat don't all have to be controlled by the player. You don't want to cut the player out entirely or fake participation. But complex combat systems don't have to mean complex controls or instructions.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
context-sensitive + co-op
Whoever combines the sort of dynamic and context-sensitive combat of Batman: Arkham Asylum with co-op in a quality game will make a lot of money.
Need I say more?
Need I say more?
Friday, August 07, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
vehicles as playgrounds
Combat involving vehicles doesn't have to mean the player is driving or controlling turrets. It can also mean players and enemies climbing around or on top of a vehicle, or fighting for control of the cabin/cockpit.
I thought of this in connection with The Saboteur, so let me just copy my post from those forums:
Anyway, the point is: if you're going to have vehicles in your game, consider that vehicles don't have to be objects in a playground -- they can be playgrounds themselves.
I thought of this in connection with The Saboteur, so let me just copy my post from those forums:
One of the influences for Sean Devlin is Indiana Jones, right? So how about some combat on and around vehicles, rather than in them.
In the first Indiana Jones movie, there's a scene where Indiana stole a German truck and Nazis are chasing him. Some Nazis are in the truck he stole, and they start to climb around the side of the truck and on top of it. Jones shakes some off, brushes some up against environmental objects, and fights someone battling for control of the vehicle inside the cabin.
In The Last Crusade, Jones is the guy on the outside. He rides up to a tank on a horse and jumps on the tank. At one point, he's squirming around as the driver is trying to crush him against the environment. He also makes it onto the top of the tank, where he battles many soldiers while the tank keeps moving. Earlier in the movie, Jones jumped from one speeding boat to another to battle in that.
John McClane, another influence for Devlin, did this as well. He fought on a plane wing while the plane was moving in Die Hard 2.
If it's not too late to add, this would be fun in The Saboteur. Perhaps only as one level, in which the game controls the vehicles while the player moves around and between them.
If, at least, enemies were able to jump on the side or back of a vehicle, then that would add a new layer of fun as players try to shake or squish the enemies. If the player could jump on a vehicle, then the enemies could try the same thing.
Anyway, the point is: if you're going to have vehicles in your game, consider that vehicles don't have to be objects in a playground -- they can be playgrounds themselves.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
gravity points
Birdfeeders and watering holes are a couple examples of places animals gravitate to in large numbers and great variety. In open world games, points like this can be useful.
One reason is that areas of enemy/prey congregation offer players set points to find content quickly, easily, and repeatedly.
Another reason is that engaging NPCs in a crowd is different than doing so while they're alone or in small groups. The Commonlands savanna outside of Freeport in Everquest 2 is a good example. Hunting one hippo is difficult when another could wander up behind you, lions are roaming nearby, and snakes are slithering hidden in the high grass.
I said "engaging NPCs" instead of "fighting" because congregation points could affect gameplay in non-combat scenarios as well. One NPC could overhear your conversation with another NPC and respond somehow, if programmed to do so.
Congregation points can also serve to place opposing forces together for potential conflict.
One reason is that areas of enemy/prey congregation offer players set points to find content quickly, easily, and repeatedly.
Another reason is that engaging NPCs in a crowd is different than doing so while they're alone or in small groups. The Commonlands savanna outside of Freeport in Everquest 2 is a good example. Hunting one hippo is difficult when another could wander up behind you, lions are roaming nearby, and snakes are slithering hidden in the high grass.
I said "engaging NPCs" instead of "fighting" because congregation points could affect gameplay in non-combat scenarios as well. One NPC could overhear your conversation with another NPC and respond somehow, if programmed to do so.
Congregation points can also serve to place opposing forces together for potential conflict.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
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:
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?
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.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.
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.
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?
Friday, June 05, 2009
Borderlands preview
If there's one game I was hoping to hear more about at E3, it's Borderlands. Gearbox is combining so many things I love: First-Person Shooter combat, Diablo-style loot, a vast open world, vehicles, monsters, dynamic enemies, RPG classes with skill customization, choice in story, etc. This gives every indication of being an awesome, long-lasting game that offers players surprising and personal experiences.
I strongly recommend this site called E3 Feed for finding E3 news on the games you're interested in. I've used it to comb through all the previews and interviews I could find on Borderlands, and I'm going to try to consolidate that information here so that you can see why I'm excited about this one.
The game's tone is both serious and silly. There can be spiders leaping at your face, and then there's fishing by grenade. The revamped art style has apparently helped to allow more lighthearted gameplay.
Borderlands is set on a planet called Pandora, where a massive treasure hold called The Vault has long been rumored to exist. The player chooses between one of four mercenaries who have just arrived on Pandora to find this treasure. The locals don't like you, and neither does the wildlife. Gameplay is mostly about going around killing stuff with unique weapons and chosen skills in search of more unique weapons and new encounters.
The characters you can choose between are Brick the bruiser, Roland the soldier, Lilith the siren, and Mordecai the hunter. Brick is a brawler. Gearbox's Randy Pitchford compares Roland to the Master Chief from Halo, and says he can deploy a shield with a turret on it. Lilith can "phase walk", making her invisible until she appears in the heart of enemies to release an explosion. And Mordecai is a "master sniper" with a big falcon-like creature he can send at enemies. Whichever character you select, you will level that character up RPG-style, selecting skills to develop him or her as you wish. Though I'm not 100% certain, it seems aiming is unaffected by statistics and is entirely based on player skill.
Weapons variation is similar to that in Diablo 2, with the game generating items on the fly. Even the developers are surprised by some of the weapons the players will use (that video is from January, by the way). You'll see things in this game you've never seen, like healing turrets and even healing sniper shots. Imagine your group's medic healing from far outside the firefight.
Gearbox is trying to make enemies dynamic as well. For example, that ShackNews article points out that some spiders will leap at you while others will roll toward you. There will be especially powerful versions of creatures, like the "hero" mobs of Diablo 2. From the Gamespot preview:
This game is as much about exploration as it is about action and achievement. And, like Oblivion, the world repopulates itself with creatures and other enemies as you kill them. From GameSpy:
Borderlands is coming to the Xbox 360, PC, and PS3... this year, the devs expect. I think you understand now why this game is so high on my list. Not many games offer many months' worth of fresh gameplay, but Borderlands looks like it might do just that. Here's hoping Gearbox succeeds.
I strongly recommend this site called E3 Feed for finding E3 news on the games you're interested in. I've used it to comb through all the previews and interviews I could find on Borderlands, and I'm going to try to consolidate that information here so that you can see why I'm excited about this one.
The game's tone is both serious and silly. There can be spiders leaping at your face, and then there's fishing by grenade. The revamped art style has apparently helped to allow more lighthearted gameplay.
Borderlands is set on a planet called Pandora, where a massive treasure hold called The Vault has long been rumored to exist. The player chooses between one of four mercenaries who have just arrived on Pandora to find this treasure. The locals don't like you, and neither does the wildlife. Gameplay is mostly about going around killing stuff with unique weapons and chosen skills in search of more unique weapons and new encounters.
The characters you can choose between are Brick the bruiser, Roland the soldier, Lilith the siren, and Mordecai the hunter. Brick is a brawler. Gearbox's Randy Pitchford compares Roland to the Master Chief from Halo, and says he can deploy a shield with a turret on it. Lilith can "phase walk", making her invisible until she appears in the heart of enemies to release an explosion. And Mordecai is a "master sniper" with a big falcon-like creature he can send at enemies. Whichever character you select, you will level that character up RPG-style, selecting skills to develop him or her as you wish. Though I'm not 100% certain, it seems aiming is unaffected by statistics and is entirely based on player skill.
Weapons variation is similar to that in Diablo 2, with the game generating items on the fly. Even the developers are surprised by some of the weapons the players will use (that video is from January, by the way). You'll see things in this game you've never seen, like healing turrets and even healing sniper shots. Imagine your group's medic healing from far outside the firefight.
Gearbox is trying to make enemies dynamic as well. For example, that ShackNews article points out that some spiders will leap at you while others will roll toward you. There will be especially powerful versions of creatures, like the "hero" mobs of Diablo 2. From the Gamespot preview:
Groups of enemies, like loot drops, are procedurally generated, so you never know quite what you're going to get. You could get a timid pack of pup skags with a few adults escorting them. Or you could run afoul of a fierce pack of adults with a spitter thrown in for good measure. The pack we saw was headed up by a "Badass Fire Skag." Yes, that is what it is actually called.The game also includes vehicles, which can be customized. And yes, you can fight in those vehicles:
This game is as much about exploration as it is about action and achievement. And, like Oblivion, the world repopulates itself with creatures and other enemies as you kill them. From GameSpy:
One mission we saw involved a team of players cooperatively taking over a factory yard filled with bandits in order to detonate a pipeline, with frantic gunfire flying everywhere. In a nod to one of Borderlands' other inspirations, World of Warcraft, raid scenarios like this can be replayed infinitely as a nice diversion from the main story's progression.Borderlands will supposedly offer the sort of co-op gamers had hoped to find in games like Fable 2. You will be able to take your single-player mode character into another player's campaign. That's the complete open world with all of your character customizations and loot. And because the action is FPS, a level 1 character can group with a level 20 and still have fun. Up to four players can play together online, and two offline. You'll decide for yourself how to divide loot.
Borderlands is coming to the Xbox 360, PC, and PS3... this year, the devs expect. I think you understand now why this game is so high on my list. Not many games offer many months' worth of fresh gameplay, but Borderlands looks like it might do just that. Here's hoping Gearbox succeeds.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, May 08, 2009
illuminating characters
In the recent "Blinded" episode of Lie To Me, an interesting thing happens (spoiler alert).
Throughout the show, a support character demonstrates no skill or productivity. He's driven by anger, not by reason, and that anger doesn't help. He's nothing but a burden to the team. One could almost say he's unimportant.
But at the end, a situation arises that suits his aptitudes. Suddenly, this character is the saving grace. In moments, he reveals a few profound insights that lead directly to the team's victory. The sudden departure from his past image is surprising, but believable.
This is a great example of what round characters should be. Authors should know more about their characters than they reveal. It's interesting to audiences when characters make sense but are never entirely known and understood. And character actions are more interesting when they can't be traced to a single origin.
Surprises like this can also encourage the audience to expect surprises throughout the setting and story, to wonder if they've misjudged other characters. Watch that episode sometime to see what I mean.
Throughout the show, a support character demonstrates no skill or productivity. He's driven by anger, not by reason, and that anger doesn't help. He's nothing but a burden to the team. One could almost say he's unimportant.
But at the end, a situation arises that suits his aptitudes. Suddenly, this character is the saving grace. In moments, he reveals a few profound insights that lead directly to the team's victory. The sudden departure from his past image is surprising, but believable.
This is a great example of what round characters should be. Authors should know more about their characters than they reveal. It's interesting to audiences when characters make sense but are never entirely known and understood. And character actions are more interesting when they can't be traced to a single origin.
Surprises like this can also encourage the audience to expect surprises throughout the setting and story, to wonder if they've misjudged other characters. Watch that episode sometime to see what I mean.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
player dynamics vs scenario dynamics
After reading GameInformer's preview of Assassin's Creed 2 and other tidbits, I'm excited about the game. The first game provided gameplay that was excellent but redundant. Ubisoft seems to be tackling the redundancy problem.
That said, I hope they don't focus on player dynamics to the exclusion of scenario dynamics. Player dynamics are the various methods of interaction offered to the player. Scenario dynamics are variations in all that exists with or without the player, like the setting and fixed events. One sort of dynamics is initiated by the player, the other by the gameworld.
In my gaming experience, the latter is more vital. Both should be present, but gameplay is better refreshed by environmental dynamics.
Bioshock offers players many choices in character development, weapons and strategy. But how eager were you to watch the same cutscenes, hear the same dialog, follow the same path, encounter the same enemies, etc? Scenario dynamics certainly existed, but player dynamics clearly received much more emphasis.
Oblivion is another example. Though the game had perhaps the best terrain variety ever, and dynamic weather to boot, too many things were static and predictable: enemy types and behaviors, NPC dialog, quests, gear, etc. I could approach the same adventure in a different way, but that's a mediocre, half-hearted thrill.
Scenario dynamics can include neutral factions/characters/beasts (will attack anything, the player or the player's enemies), visual events (like a flock a birds flying by or a piece of driftwood moving along a shoreline), variation in enemy AI, dialog variation, and gear variation. This is the adventure aspect, the unpredictable elements which the player must respond to.
It's not enough for a dynamic to create a new experience. It must be a meaningful and memorable experience. Wood that splinters under pressure from the player's bullets, for example, is a dynamic, but not necessarily a meaningful dynamic. A few crates falling apart or boards snapping in two as the player trades bullets with one enemy probably isn't going to leave a big impression. However, a huge battle with many enemies all around and splinters flying everywhere might be a fight to remember. If the player is able to shoot some support beams to drop enemies from a collapsing balcony, that's even better.
Anyway, I'm just saying, don't forget the environment and events out of the player's control when you're looking for possible dynamics to include. The unpredictable is usually more affective than the predictable.
Let me repeat an old point: replayability is what prevents gamers from trading in their games and forcing you to compete with used copies. And it increases value for gamers, because our games have lasting value. It's nice when we can revisit old games the same way we revisit old movies on DVD.
The games that earn my loyalty to a series or brand are the games that last for months.
That said, I hope they don't focus on player dynamics to the exclusion of scenario dynamics. Player dynamics are the various methods of interaction offered to the player. Scenario dynamics are variations in all that exists with or without the player, like the setting and fixed events. One sort of dynamics is initiated by the player, the other by the gameworld.
In my gaming experience, the latter is more vital. Both should be present, but gameplay is better refreshed by environmental dynamics.
Bioshock offers players many choices in character development, weapons and strategy. But how eager were you to watch the same cutscenes, hear the same dialog, follow the same path, encounter the same enemies, etc? Scenario dynamics certainly existed, but player dynamics clearly received much more emphasis.
Oblivion is another example. Though the game had perhaps the best terrain variety ever, and dynamic weather to boot, too many things were static and predictable: enemy types and behaviors, NPC dialog, quests, gear, etc. I could approach the same adventure in a different way, but that's a mediocre, half-hearted thrill.
Scenario dynamics can include neutral factions/characters/beasts (will attack anything, the player or the player's enemies), visual events (like a flock a birds flying by or a piece of driftwood moving along a shoreline), variation in enemy AI, dialog variation, and gear variation. This is the adventure aspect, the unpredictable elements which the player must respond to.
It's not enough for a dynamic to create a new experience. It must be a meaningful and memorable experience. Wood that splinters under pressure from the player's bullets, for example, is a dynamic, but not necessarily a meaningful dynamic. A few crates falling apart or boards snapping in two as the player trades bullets with one enemy probably isn't going to leave a big impression. However, a huge battle with many enemies all around and splinters flying everywhere might be a fight to remember. If the player is able to shoot some support beams to drop enemies from a collapsing balcony, that's even better.
Anyway, I'm just saying, don't forget the environment and events out of the player's control when you're looking for possible dynamics to include. The unpredictable is usually more affective than the predictable.
Let me repeat an old point: replayability is what prevents gamers from trading in their games and forcing you to compete with used copies. And it increases value for gamers, because our games have lasting value. It's nice when we can revisit old games the same way we revisit old movies on DVD.
The games that earn my loyalty to a series or brand are the games that last for months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
