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.

used market helps the industry

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

reset

I finally got past rank 55 in CoD4 multiplayer, which means that I've entered Prestige Mode. Prestige means that all of my weapon and Perk unlocks, and all of my Challenge completions are undone, but my stats remain intact and an icon by my name tells everyone of my accomplishment.

This is an awesome feature. Gamers have always been able to start games over, but it's rare to be rewarded for doing so (unless you count accomplishments for higher difficulty levels). CoD4's system offers only bragging rights. I'd like to see games with more tangible rewards for restarting.

Diablo 2 might have the best reset system. After completing the five-act adventure, the player has the option to replay all quests and areas while retaining all skill, attribute, and equipment progress. It's the same adventure taking place under very different circumstances -- a powerful player-character, powerful NPCs, more loot and more skills.

An MMO that never really materialized, originally called Realms of Torment, had a concept of character generations. The player's character would slowly age and eventually die. In that time, the character would marry, which would produce a child. The player would then start over as the child, but the child would begin with some of the former characters equipment and a blend of both parents attributes and skills. Theoretically, the marriages could take place in different parts of the world, thereby allowing each player-character to begin from a different location. And the cycle repeats.

Another failed MMO, Trials of Ascension (one of my favorite game ideas), also allowed characters to die permanently. But in that game, each life of the player would have tangible effects on the gameworld. And the player had the option to sacrifice some time to leave an artifact behind. The artifact would be an item with extraordinary power, and possibly an associated legend, hidden randomly in the gameworld for another player to discover.

There are many ways to reward players for starting over and keeping that replay fun. I wish games would do so more often.


Incidentally, this gives me a very general idea for a game. Imagine a single-player adventure with automatic saves and no manual saves. Throughout, there are many choices, some with far-reaching consequences. There are many possible endings to the game... not just plot possibilities, but which characters end up alive or dead, successful or defeated, etc. Each time the player beats the game, he can do it all over again with knowledge gained from experience, shaping new choices.

The gist, and the hardest part of the game's design, is to make it difficult for the player to find a wholly satisfactory ending. In other words, the player is encouraged to keep replaying until he achieves the "perfect" playthrough. If many of those choices are not as simple as right/wrong or happy/sad, then the player might sometimes change a decision and realize the first was actually better. Anyway...

art pacing

Diablo 3 developer Jay Wilson had this to say about Diablo 2's art:

"One of the things that’s key to “Diablo II” — and I’ve gone through and done timing on it — it changes environments every 15 minutes, and every 45 minutes they give you an environment that looks completely different than one you’ve ever seen before. And when they change environments, the contrast is huge. It’s like I’m in green lush fields, and now I’m in the darkest dungeon you’ve ever seen. I’m in a bright sandy desert, and now I’m in a completely dim mummy tomb. There are these vast shifts in look, and it’s one of the things that keeps people interested in playing the game."

That's a great observation. I can't think of another game that comes close to that frequency of major setting shifts. Learn it. Love it.

mysteries and puzzles

Corvus talks about mystery novels and how they compare to video games. The point that stuck with me was that a reader doesn't have to struggle to reach the end of the novel, but does have to struggle to anticipate the ending and/or completely understand the story once the end is reached. Games could work the same way.

As a gamer, I'm drawn mostly to exploration and action. So linear, puzzle-based adventure games (achievement-focused) aren't the sort of games I play often. But I do have some experience with puzzle-based gameplay.

Puzzles are great, but the reward for solving them doesn't always have to be narrative/game progression. Like novels involving mystery, games involving puzzles could be completed without players being required to solve all or even (perhaps) any puzzles.

Instead, solving the puzzles could offer the player a more accurate or complete picture of the story. And, like characters in popular novels, the player might have only one opportunity to notice/find clues or solve a puzzle before the story moves forward. Keep in mind... I'm not trying to imagine a particular game system here so much as raise questions about the use of puzzles and clues in games.

The original Neverwinter Nights included a mission in which the player acts as judge over two brothers. The player investigates a crime by speaking to all parties involved, then decides who will be punished. What I love about that mission is that, if my memory is correct, the player can pass judgement and the game moves forward regardless of whether or not the investigation is thorough. You can judge wrongly (not just wickedly, but mistakenly) and keep playing.

That mission did not affect the larger narrative, but a similar scenario could be used to offer the player insights into the central plotline, side narratives, characters, setting, or any other story element. The player needs to be assured some things to feel satisfied at all when the game's end is reached. But, if replayability is supplied by non-narrative elements (like action or exploration), then the player can be allowed to reach the end without having the fullest or clearest picture of events.

If well done, the ending would hint at what replaying could offer: where the gaps are in the player's understanding of characters and events, what unfortunate events could be prevented or rectified, etc. The original Doom game told the player after each level what percentage of secrets he or she discovered, forcing the player to wonder what was missed. Deeper games could accomplish the same effect in more artful ways.

classic stories vs mere entertainment

This started out as a response to Monique's article over at Write the Game, in which she stresses the importance of relationships in game dramas.

I think every classic novel and film is fundamentally about human beings and human relationships ( with others, with nature, with God, with past and future generations, with technology, etc). Classic stories are about us. Through the story experience, we, the audience, understand a little more about ourselves and how we as individuals relate to the world.



When we watch the movie Alien, for example, we're fascinated by the monster; but it's the human responses to the alien that make the story memorable. Otherwise, the Sci-Fi Channel's original movies would be worth watching. ;)

Consider this: Comedy (by which I mean "humorous narrative", as opposed to the literary critic's definition) has been around since the dawn of acting, literature (including oral literature), and art. Yet how many comedies are considered classics? The comedies that last beyond generations offer more than mere resolution. Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing and A Midsummer Night's Dream explore relationships that cannot be fully defined or explained because they are truthfully-imagined human relationships, rather than mere stratagems in entertaining plots.



What attracts so many to Da Vinci's most famous painting every year, what is mentioned time and again in the countless critiques it has received, is the mystery of Mona Lisa's smile and gaze. The painting stands on its accurate representation of the beautiful subtlety and mystery of human emotion.

Entertaining stories leave us with answers; with certain conclusions. Classics leave us with answers, but also questions -- questions which, despite their universality or social focus, are deeply personal. Classics can be appreciated over and over again because we're never entirely sure of our own responses to them. We notice things the second time around that we didn't notice the first time. Classics grow with us. Our individual personalities and experiences, our cultural, geographical, and technological points of reference, our exposure to other artistic works -- these things change us, and so change what we see in and how we respond to those great stories. Every time we read them, listen to them, gaze upon them, play them... every time it's new, because we also are new.

Where does a soldier find the strength and immediately-present love to jump on a grenade so his comrades might be spared? What do you do when a child points a gun at you with intent to kill? Is it a betrayal of friendship to ask for romance, not knowing the nature of that friend's thoughts of you? When are you obligated to reveal your feelings, and when are you obligated to be happy or brave for another person?

Those are the sort of questions classic stories raise. They are questions without certain answers. We've been asking them for thousands of years, yet still we have only incomplete and often unsatisfying responses. Classic works often provide those partial answers. They hint at the truth we know, and motivate audiences to keep searching for the rest.

I believe that all human beings are called to perfection. None of us can be perfect, but each of us is capable of amazing feats. We should strive toward the amazing, reach for the miraculous. That calling is present in every aspect of our lives, and it includes making art. Few of us will ever create a masterpiece, but we should all aim that high. The place to start is within ourselves -- the questions that drive our lives and define our actions. We all ask classic questions. A master storyteller shares such thoughts in a presentation that does them justice.

Why buy short games?

As anyone who follows my blog regularly knows, I'm a fanatic about replayability when it comes to games. I don't buy games unless I think they'll last me more than a few weeks.

I can think of plenty of movies that I respect as good movies even though they're really only great once through. Two examples are The Game and Memento. But the films I buy on DVD are ones I know I'll want to watch again from time to time.

There are paintings that I can appreciate but wouldn't want to look at every day. Any poster or picture I buy to hang on a wall or set on a bookshelf is going to be one with continuous value. Scarily enough, one of my sister's gave me a card copy of that painting once because "it made me think of you" -- yeah, that should tell you something. =P

While people commonly make impulse purchases of music albums, I think almost everyone would say that he or she tries to buy only music that will last.

Is it different with games? I don't think so.

True, a 10-hour game will last a long time for a gamer who can only play 10 minutes here, 30 minutes there. But I think the only reason so many people choose to buy short games for $50, rather than rent them for $10, is because rental services keep such low stocks of each game. If a gamer could go to a rental store or online service with near-certainty that the game he wants will be in stock, what reason would there be to purchase the game instead?

If a gamer isn't sure how much playtime he'll be able to squeeze in on a given week, that doesn't necessarily mean he has to re-rent the game and pay more. Gamefly allows renters to keep a game as long as they continue to pay the subscription fee. Even if the renter took two full months to complete the game, the cost of both months' subscription is still less than buying a new game... and Gamefly allows two games out at a time.

What do you think? Is there any reason short games don't go straight to rental, like B-movies go straight to Blockbuster, other than rental stock shortages?

No pause? Are you serious?

One of the greatest barriers to the growth of online gaming is the inability to pause.

For all but the most fanatical of gamers, our non-virtual lives take precedence. If the phone rings, we answer it. If a family member needs help with something, we get up and help. There are a thousand circumstances which might beg a gamer to stop playing, for a moment or for hours, and those things are more important than entertainment. Sure, we try to be considerate to the people we're sharing that entertainment with, but entertainment is almost always a low priority for responsible people.

Is it possible to break past this barrier? Is it possible to design online multiplayer games to be more forgiving of surprise breaks without making gameplay turn-based and avoiding real-time engagement?

Unfortunately, it seems there's no strategy that works for all games. Different styles of gameplay allow for different methods.


Time and penalties
Two methods are being adopted by an increasing number of MMO developers.

The first is to shorten play-experiences into smaller segments. Even the longest adventures can be broken into more accessible chunks. The problem with this solution is that it usually breaks dramatic tension. There's less time for build-up.

The other method is to reduce penalties for failure. To use an extreme example: if a player's character could simply be resurrected on the spot, after the character died during the player's absence, then the only penalty for "pausing" gameplay was the group being short a combatant unexpectedly. For games that primarily appeal to a sense of accomplishment (most MMOs), this undermines the strength of that accomplishment.


Focus on the moment
Another method is to make action its own reward. Consider replayable FPS games, like Halo 3 or Star Wars: Battlefront. There's certainly some appeal to accomplishment, but the heart of gameplay is the thrill of combat. There are enough dynamics that one battle doesn't feel exactly like another. The player's focus is usually on the moment, rather than the goal.

If the goal is secondary to the experience, then failing to meet the goal because you had to leave the game abruptly isn't such a big deal. If I die in Halo, oh well; I'll just try again. Obviously, the previous method of penalty reduction plays into this; but penalty reduction doesn't undermine gameplay as much when the conclusion of an encounter isn't as important as the encounter experience itself. Thus, I think it's ultimately a different method.

The main casualty of abrupt leave-taking in MMOs is grouping. If you leave suddenly, your group is left with the consequences. A focus on the moment reduces those consequences significantly, since failing doesn't severely affect the group any more than it affects you. But this is where the style of a particular game becomes important. In a level based game, you can't simply rejoin the group at any later time, as one could in Star Wars: Galaxies (not counting shuttle time).

As I said recently on Craig's site, I think the best games combine experiential gameplay with achievement-focused gameplay. More emphasis on experiential play is advantageous for a number of reasons, but one reason for the emphasis in multiplayer games is the leeway for pausing. Even if a game is based on levels and progressive goals, enabling the player to focus more on momentary experiences will helps for brief player-leaves by making the replay of an encounter less annoying.

Replayability vs narrative

Ken Levine of the Bioshock design team commented that the game might receive some horizontal content expansion via Xbox Live.

If you played the expansion for either Diablo 2 or Battle for Middle Earth 2, then you understand what horizontal expansion content is. It means that, rather than just tacking content onto the end of a game, the developer adds content within the original game so that (ideally) the original game can be replayed and feel like a somewhat new experience. Games geared toward dynamics and replayability are particularly conducive to this sort of expansion. And this sort of expansion can be an easy sale, because it represents a lot of bang for your buck (both the developer's money and the gamer's).

BfME:2's Rise of the Witch King expansion added a new faction to play with, tweaked old factions with new units, improved the AI, and drastically complicated the "War of the Ring" game-mode. Diablo 2's Lord of Destruction expansion added two new player classes (one of which represented a fundamental change to gameplay, by focusing on attack combos) in addition to the campaign expansion.


Linear narratives can disrupt replayability
Dynamics and replayability are a selling point of Bioshock as well. But I don't think expanding the content horizontally will have as much impact with that game as with the fore-mentioned games.

First off, I never bought Bioshock. I'm sure that I will eventually, but the demo I played and videos I've seen have convinced me that I'd rather buy it after this fall's bounty of great games has passed and faded a bit.

However, one thing is clear enough from the demo and videos: the player is sometimes forced to focus on the storyline. There are scripted events the player must watch and cannot interact with. The first time through the game, that might not be a problem. But it's certainly a problem the second time through.

Halo 3 (which I do own) does the same thing. After you've played through the campaign once, you can skip the cinematics; but you still have to put up with forced downtime (story-driven periods without action) and cutscenes.

Forced downtime for story immersion is annoying when you already know the story.

Bioshock's DLC will sell as well as Oblivion's, but it won't sell as well as Lord of Destruction or Rise of the Witch King. It won't because the static narrative, which the developers made so central to the game, will get in the way of replayability.

Reviving early adventure areas

Cameron called attention to how little incentive MMO players typically have to return to earlier adventuring areas, as well as the importance of "coming home" in hero stories.

This article was getting all jumbled, so I'm going to save the "coming home" bit for another day. Instead, I'm just going to tackle the problem of beginner areas becoming obsolete to players as they level up. A feeling of "home" can really help, but let's talk about that later.


PREVIOUS GAMES
Past games have included or proposed methods of what I call backsliding. Backsliding is different from deliberately returning to past areas because the player is forced to give up something and may not even want to go back. Some examples:

A character wipe waits until the player has progressed far before sending him back to the beginning without a character.

The cancelled Trials of Ascension proposed a system of limited lives (delayed permadeath, you might call it) and enough dynamics to keep replay fun. The player generally would not progress as far before being returned to the beginning, and individual player-characters would be wiped at different times due to the circumstances of their individual adventures. The world was stuffed with enough dynamics (including the results of player actions) that areas might feel different a second or third time through. They really had a lot of interesting ideas. I recommend browsing through this fansite's quote database in addition to the official site.

EQ-style backsliding allows players to lose levels, falling back just a step at a time with only the same familiar ground to be regained.

Richard Garriott's team has come up with an interesting model of character saves for Tabula Rasa, allowing the player to save a particular build of his or her character and return to it later (ex: go back and play your character before you chose one sub-class over another, thereby allowing you to explore alternate gameplay avenues without returning to the very beginning).

Another failed gamed -- I think it was Realms of Torment (later known as Mourning) -- proposed a bloodline system. Your character would have a limited lifespan, but certain traits and heirlooms would be passed down to your character's offspring. Trials of Ascension similarly allowed players to sacrifice their last remaining lives to create an artifact, which would appear randomly in the gameworld to be acquired by some other player.

In previous games, it seems that players seldom return to earlier areas without penalty for reasons other than social reasons having little to do with the game's design, such as helping a friend level up.



WITHOUT PENALTY
So what can entice the player to return to areas and really enjoy it?


Factions
In the past, progressing through a faction's available quests and other content occurred in a single area. You work your way up the faction ladder in a particular town by finishing quests focused on the surrounding area, and then you move on to the next (higher-level) town to work your way through its questline.

But what if there was no immediate jump between the guard captain's quests and the king's quests? The game could encourage you to move on to other areas, but later encourage you to return for different questlines/causes. If it's a level-based game, then the town might have quests for levels 1-12, 25-34, 56-70, but none for the levels in between. Of course, this requires an EQ-style cohabitance of low-level and high-level content. EQ's Oasis had both lower-level ghouls and higher-level sand giants, and players loved it...even as (because) they had to watch their backs and occasionally run for their lives. Breaking up faction progressions like this also helps to create an impression that total progression isn't easy. It's an adventure, a journey, that was months in the making.

There's also the Oblivion model. In that game, some factions exist in every city (Mages Guild, Fighters Guild, Thieves Guild) and progressing through those faction involves moving between cities frequently. You might complete only one quest (in an MMO, I would expect it to be something significant if it's the only one) before being directed to a faction official in another town. Encouraging travel this frequently has the benefit helping the player see the big picture (the world's lore on a macro scale) and can help keep gameplay fresh.


New visions and opportunities
In real life, returning to a place we haven't seen in many years can feel nostalgic, but we can also be surprised by all of the things that have changed. Or we might be surprised by all the things we didn't notice before or don't see in the same way, because we too have changed and perceive the world differently than when we were younger.

Obviously, the sort of dynamic worlds that MMO gamers keep hoping for might be capable of offering the player such surprises on returning to old territories. Not so obviously, some of those changes could call for input from advanced players. Consider the classic tale of Robin Hood, in which King Richard is off in the Crusades and the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham oppressing the people and trying to usurp the throne. In an MMO, this would translate into a situation of a once-content but now-oppressed town that needs the help of advanced players working cooperatively to free the people. Such situations don't have to be so dramatic and expensive for the developer, of course.

As for seeing the same place differently, that can be accomplished largely through dividing high-level and low-level content more sharply in towns. In real life, odds are that you noticed stores and venues at age 25 that you didn't notice at age 10... because you didn't care about the same things at age 10, and didn't have access to the same things. You might be more aware of the names and locations of pubs, for example. Similarly, if particular places and NPCs have little effect on or potential gameplay opportunities for players at early levels, then that area will feel different when they return to it at higher levels. Perhaps the NPC nobles or other leaders are only interested in higher-level players, for example.

NPCs can be revealed for very different characters than you originally knew, through knowledge the player picks up in other areas. Perhaps the village drunk seems harmless and really a good guy when you first meet him, but you learn later and elsewhere that the drinking is just a cover for the espionage he's performing for the hated raiders who sack the town every so often. By acquiring that information, it might open up new dialogue options and quest options with him. After you've confronted him, he might look at you differently as you pass by, scowling whereas he used to smile and cheer you with his beer held high.


What else might make earlier areas worth coming back to?

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.

Alts only

Some thoughts while considering "alt-itis". I'm glad that it happened to coincide with Damianov's "End Game" article, because I think the subjects are closely related.


WHY HAVE A MAIN?
Why is permadeath such a frightening prospect to most MMO gamers? Well, it's because permadeath is a real end to character progression, and character progression is first-and-foremost in your typical RPG; certainly in your typical MMORPG. Permadeath is a brick wall, whereas the sort of death usually found in MMOs is more of a speedbump.

It's a valid concern, but I wonder if character progression in MMOs could be reimagined so that it is both powerfully immersive (the player strongly associates with his or her character) and fleeting. Is it possible to design an MMO in which players expect to play one character for only twenty or thirty hours of gametime before starting the next character? Afterall, it seems most people have at least one alt, if not more.

Is it possible to create an MMO in which "alts" are king, and replay is essential?


CONTINUITY
In an arcade game like Pac-Man or Super Smash Bros., it's no big deal that one play-session is entirely unrelated to the last. But a sense of continuity seems to be an essential element of any RPG. So abandoning the traditional MMO model of prolonged character development would demand that continuity be provided in some other way.

There are two examples I can remember reading about.

In one MMO being developed about a year ago (I remember it changing its name at some point, but I can't remember either title), a generations system was proposed. The player's character had a limited lifespan, but each new character was a descendant of the last. Some skill affinities (representing childhood training) and objects (heirlooms) would pass on.

Trials of Ascension, on the other hand, advertised a system of delayed permadeath in which the player could die so many times (around 100) before being permanently buried. Rather than heirlooms, it allowed characters to sacrifice their last few lives to create an artifact (an item imbued with traits representing that character), which would be left to the world to be discovered but not passed on to any character. The mere mention of permadeath scared many potential players away. However, because the proposed world was dynamic and players could leave a meaningful impact on the world, there was a sense of continuity (theoretically, anyway; the game didn't make it to release).

Right now, I feel like Colonel Patterson in The Ghost and The Darkness...
Beaumont: "Did it work?"
Patterson: "Point of fact, it didn't. But I'm convinced the theory is sound."

I'm sure there are more ways to provide continuity than just these two, but player impact on the gameworld, in particular, seems to be a strong method.


SCOPE
If an MMO was designed for short character lifespans, would that mean the tradition of massive worlds must be abandoned? Afterall, any single character could not experience the same breadth of content. One can't walk the same length of road in a month as one could in three months. I don't think that necessarily means the world should be smaller, though.


In Deus Ex, a good example of a game designed for replayability, the player repeating the adventure could enjoy running through the same settings with different weapons, different skills, and making different dialogue/quest choices. That sort of system could work equally well in an MMO. In fact, EQ2 is a decent example, since I played many different race-class combinations in the city of Freeport and still had fun (though more of the quests could have been less linear).

The original EQ and WoW demonstrate the value of having a variety of starting locations. Even if a shorter-lived character can't trek as far, he or she can begin in a different place.

Also, shorter spans mean more teasers. The player might get a glimpse of unexplored area or quest shortly before the character's end, enticing him to work toward that content in the next life. Or the player might be thrilled by another player's skill or item. An alt-oriented game would not make the character feel like he is abandoning his investment when trying a new character.


DEPTH
What about depth of experience? A shorter lifespan could mean less room for character growth. But in real life, don't our limited lifespans add value to our achievements?

By combining a system of skill trees and skill drops/rewards, then placing some of those skills at the farthest edges of potential experience, the game could be a paradise for achievers and explorers alike. In a typical MMO, anyone can reach the highest skill levels with enough time and dedication. But place enough dynamics in a limited lifespan and it becomes truly a challenge to reach the highest goals. This can be done with items and other elements as well. A player might even prove that it was more skill than luck by repeating the feat.

The elite status of individual characters wouldn't last long (except in record, possibly in-game) as the players who find/achieve epic items, skills, or monsters would die, but player organizations could take on new meaning. A guild could adapt its goals to new discoveries as its member characters are constantly changing. Whole characters, and regiments of characters, could be designed specifically for epic goals. If an epic monster seems vulnerable to cold and shock, then the guild might solicit its members to develop characters with cold and shock prowess. In addition to traditional raiding, imagine guild endeavors that are weeks in the making and based on more elements. Perhaps the guild has gained knowledge of a particularly powerful cold spell scroll in some far off land. It might arrange to acquire it to aid in the monster assault... and the quest for the scroll, alone, might span more than one character life. Much could be done here to take raiding skill far beyond organization and execution.

Thirty hours (longer than most single-player games) should be enough time to satisfy player desires for individual character development. The main challenge here is probably just changing the expectations of veteran MMO gamers.


WE CAN HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
None of this is to suggest that the old system of one main, continuous character is a system that should be replaced. I just don't think it's the only viable way.