I've neglected this blogsite far too long, so I'm just going to go ahead and post one of the unpolished (and perhaps disunified) blogs I started in the past month. This is really a topic I'd like to put a lot more thought into in the future.
In his recent article on Gamesutra, Neil Sorens makes a number of good points. One of them is that the statistical progression many developers employ to portray character advancement does not translate into an affectual impression of advancement for the player. The player's character may get stronger, but so are his or her enemies. Abilities may become more powerful, but their relative effect remains constant, or even diminishes.
ESSENCE OF PROGRESSION
Game developers haven't been employing these methods blindly, of course. The same situations arise in many epic stories of adventure. Stronger protagonists face stronger enemies, the odds reverting to those faced during more amateur encounters. Yet there is a sense that the protagonists are growing. How? To answer that question, I'll use examples from the LOTR films.
Roles, not Power
Though growth in power does matter, the primary growth in literary and cinematic heroes occurs through the discovery or formation of identity through roles. Aragorn accepts a calling to lead those he feared to fail. Frodo, on the other hand, accepts a calling to leave the comforts of community in order to serve that community. Gandalf the Grey becomes Gandalf the White after demonstrating a willingness to sacrifice himself for others. Samwise defines himself through unwavering loyalty in the face of insurmountable odds.
Roles are necessarily relational. Other beings and the challenges one is faced with define one's placement within a context. So even in a single-player game, the player's capacity for growth must be viewed in the player's relation to other elements.So how has the concept of roles been translated into past games? Classes are the most obvious answer, but a class usually represents a combination of two factors.
The first is skills. In terms of gameplay, skills most represent one's inclination toward particular methods of engagement. A player may prefer sniping, firing a blaze of projectiles, or slow but powerful explosions. A player may prefer deception and luring, frontal assault, surprise attacks, ally direction, or environment manipulation.
The second factor is one's alignment within a group. This represents how one's skills and goals relate to those of others within a community and/or the community as a whole. A player may prefer scouting, leadership, advising, resource management, resource production, chronicling, or action assistance. This applies beyond the obvious example of online grouping. A character in a single-player game has specific relationships to the other beings of the gameworld.
NEGLECTED AVENUES OF ENGAGEMENT
These are relationships between the player-character and gameworld which are absent or rare in among the games I'm familiar with.
Shrinking the Skill Palette
In epic stories, heroes occasionally face opponents that can only be defeated by a reduced number of means. In The Fellowship of the Ring, the cave troll in the mines of Moria knocked the heroes about like vermin until Legolas finally brought it down with a single arrow expertly shot into the troll's brain. It's alright to present players with obstacles that negate player abilities, as long as (1) that obstacle may be circumvented (in the event of reasonable despair),(2) victory is accompanied by an impression of extraordinarily admirable accomplishment, and (3) it's not over-used.
Resurrection
Heroes occasionally face opponents that can only be defeated temporarily (incapacitated, banished, etc.). Sauron returned from a prior defeat, because total victory over him required multiple conflicts to be resolved. It's alright for enemies to recover from defeat, if (1) the reason behind that recovery is clearly evidenced and (2) the player has a means of conquering or circumventing that enemy within a reasonable timeframe.
The Insurmountable
Characters don't have to be omnipotent to be heroic. Gandalf cowered before the Witchking and refused the challenge of bearing the One Ring, both for knowledge of being outmatched. Frodo enabled the destruction of the ring, but not without becoming incurably scarred. Heroism does not imply a capacity to overcome absolutely anything. It implies extraordinary strength. Players should feel exhilirated by their own potential, but not as if all obstacles are insurmountable.
I've always thought RPGs should contain entities which will always inspire awe and/or fear, regardless of player growth. The mountain that can't be climbed, the beast that can't be conquered, the force that can't be contained...these are the most memorable and inspirational objects of any world. And how great the exhiliration of meeting them face-to-face. Some creatures should seem invincible, but ultimately be surmountable by the most creative and/or determined players. Others, however, should remain insurmountable. These are not wasted assets. They're at least as important as the common design practice of including buildings which cannot be entered but complete the setting...and I'd argue that they're infinitely more valuable.
Support Roles in Single-Player
It's interesting to note that single-player games have rarely, if ever, provided core gameplay opportunities for gamers who prefer to reinforce others, rather than lead. To provide such gameplay in a single-player environment is surely a challenge (perhaps one that only recent advancements in artificial intelligence can overcome), but it still surprises me. Many, if not most, human beings prefer following or accompanying to leading (albeit, often in contradiction to their spoken preference, since modern democratic ideals promote the idea that we should all be leaders and that following is a sign of weakness).
The main challenge I see here is giving supportive players control over the game's pace. This might be accomplished in the way the dog of Molyneux's recent Fable 2 demonstration presents. The dog runs ahead of its master, but in the direction the player chooses. Of course, in this case, the player is still playing the role of leader. But an NPC leader might similarly wait for the player to accompany him/her, and the player could toggle the A.I. from leader to follower or back by simply clicking a particular button.
It would likely require an extraordinary reworking of old mechanics. But, as I said, it seems an inescapable consideration when one considers that many people prefer not to lead. This is probably a major factor in the accessibility of interactive media to mainstream society.
Noticeable Differences in Skill Upgrades
Require the abilities and resources the player has acquired through growth to be used with progression. Make advanced abilities fundamentally different from amateur abilities. Increasing the strength of a fireball isn't enough (because strength is relative to the endurance of enemies). Increasing the area of effect, the possible uses (burns different elements, for example), duration of burn, casting animation, contact animation...these are significant. They cost more in design resources, yes, but the cost-benefit ratio is better.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Preempting Freezes
Since I've had it, my 360 has frozen up on me from time to time. It never had the problem with some of the games I rented, like Kameo. But it has frozen during NFS:MW, Gears of War, and especially Oblivion.
The last tends to freeze up at predictable times; like when I'm running (Agility maxed = very fast) through a heavily wooded area, with "Detect Life" active, my bow knocked, aim zoomed, and I turn quickly as a monster leaps at me. I can understand the freeze...that's a hell of a lot being processed at once.
But I have to wonder if it's really unfeasible for freezes to be preempted. Is it not possible for a game to prevent the realization of a software event (user command, high-tier graphics effect, etc) if that event will exceed available processing capacity? Surely, few gamers would object to the replacement of a momentary graphical glitch (ex: shadows or shaders being turned off) in the stead of a freeze (requiring a reboot). Is it not possible for such a fail-safe mechanism to operate quickly enough without demanding too much of its own processing power?
The last tends to freeze up at predictable times; like when I'm running (Agility maxed = very fast) through a heavily wooded area, with "Detect Life" active, my bow knocked, aim zoomed, and I turn quickly as a monster leaps at me. I can understand the freeze...that's a hell of a lot being processed at once.
But I have to wonder if it's really unfeasible for freezes to be preempted. Is it not possible for a game to prevent the realization of a software event (user command, high-tier graphics effect, etc) if that event will exceed available processing capacity? Surely, few gamers would object to the replacement of a momentary graphical glitch (ex: shadows or shaders being turned off) in the stead of a freeze (requiring a reboot). Is it not possible for such a fail-safe mechanism to operate quickly enough without demanding too much of its own processing power?
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
missing the obvious
I downloaded the Star Trek: Legacy demo onto my 360 the other day. It never ceases to amaze me how many obvious irritations developers let slip by sometimes.
The demo has no tutorial. Instead, it simply provides a diagram of controls during the loading screen. A tutorial takes resources to build, and perhaps the tutorial function is taken care of in the full game in some other way, so I can accept the controls diagram as the more viable option.
But the diagram only stays up there as long as the skirmish is loading. There is no "Ready?" prompt before leaving the diagram and starting the skirmish. There is no option to access the diagram by pausing during the skirmish. The result is that, unless the player manages to memorize the diagram's information in those 10 seconds or less (and the diagram alone does not answer all control questions, by the way), then the player is left frustrated. Experimenting with buttons during the skirmish helped me very little.
It's such a little thing, that "Ready" prompt. Why isn't there? Likely, because Bethesda never tested the demo on people who hadn't played the game yet. They probably just tested it with people who had been playing for months, already knew the controls, and so didn't notice such an obvious need.
Little things like this with significant consequences pop up in games all the time. Completely fresh testers are needed during each new phase of development; and that goes for demos, too. Looking at the industry from the outside, I had assumed that was common practice for all developers, but problems like this make me wonder.
The demo has no tutorial. Instead, it simply provides a diagram of controls during the loading screen. A tutorial takes resources to build, and perhaps the tutorial function is taken care of in the full game in some other way, so I can accept the controls diagram as the more viable option.
But the diagram only stays up there as long as the skirmish is loading. There is no "Ready?" prompt before leaving the diagram and starting the skirmish. There is no option to access the diagram by pausing during the skirmish. The result is that, unless the player manages to memorize the diagram's information in those 10 seconds or less (and the diagram alone does not answer all control questions, by the way), then the player is left frustrated. Experimenting with buttons during the skirmish helped me very little.
It's such a little thing, that "Ready" prompt. Why isn't there? Likely, because Bethesda never tested the demo on people who hadn't played the game yet. They probably just tested it with people who had been playing for months, already knew the controls, and so didn't notice such an obvious need.
Little things like this with significant consequences pop up in games all the time. Completely fresh testers are needed during each new phase of development; and that goes for demos, too. Looking at the industry from the outside, I had assumed that was common practice for all developers, but problems like this make me wonder.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Molyneux, I salute you
Of course, I wasn't able to attend the GDC, but I have been reading the interviews and watching videos. And after seeing Peter Molyneux explain the dog companion in Fable 2, I wish I had been there to shake the man's hand.
It has the potential to be--and, from the video, appears to be meeting that potential--the greatest advancement in storytelling this industry has seen in the past decade. It may be one of the most important games releasing (presumably) this year.
Finally, a game developer has the cojones to introduce true empathy and make a game about more than mere entertainment, a game that will actually pull at players' emotions and sanction behavior through emotional punishments and rewards. Finally, a developer has introduced unconditional love to a game, for the player to not only enjoy but also face responsibility for.
Other games have included drama and serious storytelling, but I'm hoping this will be the first to approach the effectiveness of literature and film. It will take a lot of work and luck to get it just right, but I thank Molyneux for even trying.
It has the potential to be--and, from the video, appears to be meeting that potential--the greatest advancement in storytelling this industry has seen in the past decade. It may be one of the most important games releasing (presumably) this year.
Finally, a game developer has the cojones to introduce true empathy and make a game about more than mere entertainment, a game that will actually pull at players' emotions and sanction behavior through emotional punishments and rewards. Finally, a developer has introduced unconditional love to a game, for the player to not only enjoy but also face responsibility for.
Other games have included drama and serious storytelling, but I'm hoping this will be the first to approach the effectiveness of literature and film. It will take a lot of work and luck to get it just right, but I thank Molyneux for even trying.
Monday, February 19, 2007
replayability = cost efficiency
THE PROBLEM
The other day, I reviewed a video of Will Wright's presentation at the GDC last year. I've watched his walkthrough of the Spore demo many times, but I'm glad I went back and reviewed the version of the video that includes Wright's comments before the demonstration.
He pointed out, as many have, that the ratio of assets-to-gameplay leaned sharply toward assets when new technology allowed the storage of much more data. The storage capacity of floppy disks paled in comparison to that of CD-ROM, and game developers assumed that they should find a way to use all available space. The same situation has recurred with each advancement in information and computer technology.
Many game developers simply don't get the same amount of bang for their buck as in the good ol' days. Costs rise every year, but are the games becoming more engrossing?
Note I didn't say "fun". Like with films, different types of games can have different goals of appeal. Some types of game experiences have certainly achieved stronger effects over the years, but many productions are simply wasteful. I acknowledge the significance of each particular games circumstances, so this is just generally aimed.
REMEDIES
Two games on the horizon are attempting to remedy modern problems of resource management, and in two different ways.
On the one hand, there's Spore. Spore uses limited assets, "procedural" (algorithmic) graphics and procedural physics to empower players to create their own worlds and creatures (which are shared asynchronously), and ultimately their own gameplay experiences. Aside from the media success this concept has already received, I think it's safe to say the game will sell like hotcakes and be enjoyed by millions for many years, much like The Sims.
On the other hand, there's Hellgate: London. Hellgate builds assets the old-fashioned way, but heavily employs randomization (with areas, gear-loot, enemy type and placement, etc.) to ensure player experiences are unique, unexpected, and replayable. This game has also received great media attention already. Like Spore, it has a fanbase established by previous titles of the same development team. In combination with widespread interest in the game itself, this makes great financial success and good longevity extremely likely.
So here we have (1) algorithmic modeling and creation-tools for players, and (2) the randomization of crafted assets. Is there another road?
"THIS ONE OR THAT ONE?" "YES, THANK YOU."
One consideration is a mixture of both methods.
Unguided Character Creation, Guided Adventure
Could it be viable to combine a Spore-like procedural-tool system, which allows huge variety in character customization, with variants of traditional character-advancement methods and story-infused adventure?
In other words, imagine characters creating creatures (both humanoid and non-humanoid) of variety similar to that in Spore, but placed in a world with history, lore, and established conflicts. The main challenges here seem to be enabling players to interact with that lore, despite their characters' inhumanity, and offering avenues of character advancement that are plastic enough to accommodate non-traditional character models. Because of the vast differences between player-characters, traditional foci of balance would be moot (and replaced by others, I'm sure).
If the upcoming MMOG Trials of Ascension makes it out the door, then it might answer some of the questions raised concerning this idea's viability. That game is promising non-humanoid player-characters with a unique mix of PvP and PvE gameplay.
Ultimately, I feel pretty certain this could work. The skills available to each character would be largely determined by the unique character form, rather than any cumulative classification. Enabling non-humanoid characters to interact with lore can be accomplished by focusing on non-verbal lore presentation; characters see it and interact with it, rather than read about it.
Guided Character Creation, Unguided World
On the other hand, might it be viable to set an open-ended adventure game (like Oblivion) in a world with landscapes, creatures, and events that are procedurally generated?
This model presents two possibilities for application of the gameworld's procedural generation. (1) The world is generated only at the game's onset. (2) The world is generated at the game's onset, many world elements will remain present and/or constant (for virtual stability), but the game will continue to procedurally create new content during gameplay.
The main challenge for this model would also concern the lore. But, rather than difficulties in enabling players to interact with the lore, the challenge would be to ensure a fulfilling lore in a world not directly invented by the developer. This raises the fascinating idea of an emergent lore system...similar to emergent AI, but applied on a macro level and attempting deeper consequences. Such a system, if sufficiently broad and complex, would likely lead to one gameplay adventure being infinitely more dangerous and unpredictable than another, but that sort of variance would be found attractive by many (including me).
PAVING NEW GROUND
In what other ways might one combine few assets with great variability, character growth, and avoid an arcade impression which makes the game seem more like whack-a-mole than an RP adventure?
I originally intended to present a few examples here myself, but I've already delayed posting this several times. I'll try to come back to it.
The other day, I reviewed a video of Will Wright's presentation at the GDC last year. I've watched his walkthrough of the Spore demo many times, but I'm glad I went back and reviewed the version of the video that includes Wright's comments before the demonstration.
He pointed out, as many have, that the ratio of assets-to-gameplay leaned sharply toward assets when new technology allowed the storage of much more data. The storage capacity of floppy disks paled in comparison to that of CD-ROM, and game developers assumed that they should find a way to use all available space. The same situation has recurred with each advancement in information and computer technology.
Many game developers simply don't get the same amount of bang for their buck as in the good ol' days. Costs rise every year, but are the games becoming more engrossing?
Note I didn't say "fun". Like with films, different types of games can have different goals of appeal. Some types of game experiences have certainly achieved stronger effects over the years, but many productions are simply wasteful. I acknowledge the significance of each particular games circumstances, so this is just generally aimed.
REMEDIES
Two games on the horizon are attempting to remedy modern problems of resource management, and in two different ways.
On the one hand, there's Spore. Spore uses limited assets, "procedural" (algorithmic) graphics and procedural physics to empower players to create their own worlds and creatures (which are shared asynchronously), and ultimately their own gameplay experiences. Aside from the media success this concept has already received, I think it's safe to say the game will sell like hotcakes and be enjoyed by millions for many years, much like The Sims.
On the other hand, there's Hellgate: London. Hellgate builds assets the old-fashioned way, but heavily employs randomization (with areas, gear-loot, enemy type and placement, etc.) to ensure player experiences are unique, unexpected, and replayable. This game has also received great media attention already. Like Spore, it has a fanbase established by previous titles of the same development team. In combination with widespread interest in the game itself, this makes great financial success and good longevity extremely likely.
So here we have (1) algorithmic modeling and creation-tools for players, and (2) the randomization of crafted assets. Is there another road?
"THIS ONE OR THAT ONE?" "YES, THANK YOU."
One consideration is a mixture of both methods.
Unguided Character Creation, Guided Adventure
Could it be viable to combine a Spore-like procedural-tool system, which allows huge variety in character customization, with variants of traditional character-advancement methods and story-infused adventure?
In other words, imagine characters creating creatures (both humanoid and non-humanoid) of variety similar to that in Spore, but placed in a world with history, lore, and established conflicts. The main challenges here seem to be enabling players to interact with that lore, despite their characters' inhumanity, and offering avenues of character advancement that are plastic enough to accommodate non-traditional character models. Because of the vast differences between player-characters, traditional foci of balance would be moot (and replaced by others, I'm sure).
If the upcoming MMOG Trials of Ascension makes it out the door, then it might answer some of the questions raised concerning this idea's viability. That game is promising non-humanoid player-characters with a unique mix of PvP and PvE gameplay.
Ultimately, I feel pretty certain this could work. The skills available to each character would be largely determined by the unique character form, rather than any cumulative classification. Enabling non-humanoid characters to interact with lore can be accomplished by focusing on non-verbal lore presentation; characters see it and interact with it, rather than read about it.
Guided Character Creation, Unguided World
On the other hand, might it be viable to set an open-ended adventure game (like Oblivion) in a world with landscapes, creatures, and events that are procedurally generated?
This model presents two possibilities for application of the gameworld's procedural generation. (1) The world is generated only at the game's onset. (2) The world is generated at the game's onset, many world elements will remain present and/or constant (for virtual stability), but the game will continue to procedurally create new content during gameplay.
The main challenge for this model would also concern the lore. But, rather than difficulties in enabling players to interact with the lore, the challenge would be to ensure a fulfilling lore in a world not directly invented by the developer. This raises the fascinating idea of an emergent lore system...similar to emergent AI, but applied on a macro level and attempting deeper consequences. Such a system, if sufficiently broad and complex, would likely lead to one gameplay adventure being infinitely more dangerous and unpredictable than another, but that sort of variance would be found attractive by many (including me).
PAVING NEW GROUND
In what other ways might one combine few assets with great variability, character growth, and avoid an arcade impression which makes the game seem more like whack-a-mole than an RP adventure?
I originally intended to present a few examples here myself, but I've already delayed posting this several times. I'll try to come back to it.
Friday, February 16, 2007
LOTR Online: initial impressions
I got an invitation to the preview period yesterday, downloaded the game this morning, and have played on and off since. The NDA was apparently lifted last week, so I'll go ahead and express my disappointment here.
I have created two characters, a human minstrel and a dwarf champion, both level 4. Many would say that this is far too soon for any sort of review, but I disagree. If a game doesn't grab me in the first hour or two, it's unreasonable to expect me to submit myself to further boredom or frustration to reach the good stuff (and the fun at the high levels doesn't matter). With how many products other than MMOGs does the developer say, "Sure, it sucks at first, but it'll grow on you"?
THE GOOD
I enjoy the moments when my character is frozen for half-a-minute as scripted events unfold before me. I was excited when my NPC companion shouted encouragement to Gimli as the hero faced a giant cave troll. I was excited when Gandalf turned the troll to stone later on. These events felt like genuine drama.
I like the various cultural backgrounds and settings offered for each race. My character isn't just a dwarf, but a dwarf of the Grey Mountains...as opposed to a dwarf of Lonely Mountain or three other options. Any extra depth the developer can offer to player characters is great.
The artistic design is plain, but impressive. There's a nice sense of scale, with a good range of elevation in the terrain. The visual customization for characters is limited, but better than WoW's.
The minstrels can apparently compose their own music (to a very limited extent). I'm not sure how legality plays into that, but it's great to see players being given a means to be so creative and productive.
THE BAD
The graphics setting automatically chosen for my computer was High. That lasted about 5-10 minutes before the first wave of horrendous lag. The lag still plagued me at Medium, so I eventually stuck with Low. Because of the graphical style (similar to WoW's), the differences between High and Low were hardly noticed. But the lesson is this: for the many gamers (unlike me) without experience in games and graphics adjustments, automatically selected settings should be more practical. Don't set the graphics based on the character selection screen; test the setting with moving objects and large render distances. The amateur gamer should rarely have to enter the Options menu.
THE UGLY
Words can't express my disappointment that MMOGs are changing so little.
Like many veteran MMO gamers, my first taste of an MMOG universe (EQ) was glorious, but MMOGs since have been less and less able to hold my interest. I've played and tested almost a dozen MMOGs (Everquest, Shadowbane, Asheron's Call 2, Star Wars: Galaxies, Wish, Horizons, Everquest 2, City of Heroes/City of Villains, World of Warcraft, Vanguard, and LOTR Online). It's come to the point that I'm no longer interested in MMOGs; at least, not until there's a revolution (not just an evolution) in core gameplay design.
The "quests" are wretched. "Go kill X number of Y to change nothing and get the same reward I gave the last guy!".
The NPCs stand like PEZ-dispensers, waiting to honor every unique savior with the same trite story and promise of grey glory. I'm reminded of The Incredibles: "when everybody's special, no one is".
The combat is boring. "Auto-attack" may not exactly be jargon for "instant win", but it's still captures the essence of the experience. So many hotbutton-skill choices! yet all just waiting for players to find the perfect sequence and apply that to every fight. The really clever games include a "match this character action to this NPC action" whack-a-mole system. Yippee.
Creature locations are neatly divided into level categories and utterly predictable. Since when is predictability attractive in adventure entertainment? Perhaps that's my mistake...to believe that true adventure was ever a goal.
SUMMARY
Notice what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that LOTR is bad as MMOGs go. I'm saying that it's MMOGs in general that are the problem.
And, of course, the problem only exists if one is concerned with game quality and not just profit from the novelty of a virtual world. It's my long experience with MMOGs that has led me to this point of disinterest. I'm sure the basic idea of a virtual world can still suck in plenty of newcomers.
Eventually, I'll probably return to the genre. In the meantime, I'm going back to single-player adventure games. I hate to speak so pessimistically about anything, but I'm not seeing many reasons to hope here.
I have created two characters, a human minstrel and a dwarf champion, both level 4. Many would say that this is far too soon for any sort of review, but I disagree. If a game doesn't grab me in the first hour or two, it's unreasonable to expect me to submit myself to further boredom or frustration to reach the good stuff (and the fun at the high levels doesn't matter). With how many products other than MMOGs does the developer say, "Sure, it sucks at first, but it'll grow on you"?
THE GOOD
I enjoy the moments when my character is frozen for half-a-minute as scripted events unfold before me. I was excited when my NPC companion shouted encouragement to Gimli as the hero faced a giant cave troll. I was excited when Gandalf turned the troll to stone later on. These events felt like genuine drama.
I like the various cultural backgrounds and settings offered for each race. My character isn't just a dwarf, but a dwarf of the Grey Mountains...as opposed to a dwarf of Lonely Mountain or three other options. Any extra depth the developer can offer to player characters is great.
The artistic design is plain, but impressive. There's a nice sense of scale, with a good range of elevation in the terrain. The visual customization for characters is limited, but better than WoW's.
The minstrels can apparently compose their own music (to a very limited extent). I'm not sure how legality plays into that, but it's great to see players being given a means to be so creative and productive.
THE BAD
The graphics setting automatically chosen for my computer was High. That lasted about 5-10 minutes before the first wave of horrendous lag. The lag still plagued me at Medium, so I eventually stuck with Low. Because of the graphical style (similar to WoW's), the differences between High and Low were hardly noticed. But the lesson is this: for the many gamers (unlike me) without experience in games and graphics adjustments, automatically selected settings should be more practical. Don't set the graphics based on the character selection screen; test the setting with moving objects and large render distances. The amateur gamer should rarely have to enter the Options menu.
THE UGLY
Words can't express my disappointment that MMOGs are changing so little.
Like many veteran MMO gamers, my first taste of an MMOG universe (EQ) was glorious, but MMOGs since have been less and less able to hold my interest. I've played and tested almost a dozen MMOGs (Everquest, Shadowbane, Asheron's Call 2, Star Wars: Galaxies, Wish, Horizons, Everquest 2, City of Heroes/City of Villains, World of Warcraft, Vanguard, and LOTR Online). It's come to the point that I'm no longer interested in MMOGs; at least, not until there's a revolution (not just an evolution) in core gameplay design.
The "quests" are wretched. "Go kill X number of Y to change nothing and get the same reward I gave the last guy!".
The NPCs stand like PEZ-dispensers, waiting to honor every unique savior with the same trite story and promise of grey glory. I'm reminded of The Incredibles: "when everybody's special, no one is".
The combat is boring. "Auto-attack" may not exactly be jargon for "instant win", but it's still captures the essence of the experience. So many hotbutton-skill choices! yet all just waiting for players to find the perfect sequence and apply that to every fight. The really clever games include a "match this character action to this NPC action" whack-a-mole system. Yippee.
Creature locations are neatly divided into level categories and utterly predictable. Since when is predictability attractive in adventure entertainment? Perhaps that's my mistake...to believe that true adventure was ever a goal.
SUMMARY
Notice what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that LOTR is bad as MMOGs go. I'm saying that it's MMOGs in general that are the problem.
And, of course, the problem only exists if one is concerned with game quality and not just profit from the novelty of a virtual world. It's my long experience with MMOGs that has led me to this point of disinterest. I'm sure the basic idea of a virtual world can still suck in plenty of newcomers.
Eventually, I'll probably return to the genre. In the meantime, I'm going back to single-player adventure games. I hate to speak so pessimistically about anything, but I'm not seeing many reasons to hope here.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
subsurface education ... and stuff
I'm working on a project, for my Technical and Professional Writing class, in which I've been asked to brainstorm questions that would be relevant to closing a bridge for preservation and diverting a major thoroughfare in the process. It's much more complicated than that, actually.
I was surprised to realize that I'm instinctively using my Sim City experience as a model for the situation. For example, one of my questions is: "Is the thoroughfare/bridge in an industrial, commercial, or residential district?" I only played the original version of the game, so I can't call on the intricacies which are probably present in newer versions. Anyway, I realize now that Sim City did quite a bit to introduce me to the real strife of urban planning.
It makes me wonder how other games have affected my knowledge or perception of the world in small ways like that.
On a mildly related note: I reviewed a couple of old video presentations of Spore today. It's still the upcoming game I'm most anxious to play. In any RPG that offers character customization, I usually spend hours tweaking my characters to be just right. That part's a game in itself. So the prospect of an entire game built around that particular avenue of fun has me drooling to no end.
I also reviewed some Hellgate: London videos. That one's still in my Must-Have category, but I think the shine has worn off a bit. I believe a lot of that has to do with the underwhelming sound effects, as I previously discussed. I also hate seeing missile weapons (bullets, rockets, arrows, etc) that have no visible force of impact. The punch is important.
I noticed on Hellgate's site that there's a rough release date now of "summer 07". As pleased as I am that I don't have to wait until winter to get my hands on it (maybe... we'll see, right?), I'm irritated when any publisher or developer talks of release more than a month in advance. Even rough dates like that are so often false in this industry that early dates always sound disingenuine. Just tell me when it's done and on its way to manufacturing.
Speaking of false release publicity, here we are approaching March and Alan Wake is nowhere to be seen. I can't say I've ever been that excited about this one though. It got a lot of hype for graphics, but there's next to no information concerning gameplay. I'm betting that it will feel something like Condemned; good for a rental, but not worth buying.
On the other hand, Mass Effect has me more excited than I used to be. I guess I have more of an impression of open-ended gameplay now. KotOR, for me, was a rental. It offered some character customization, but the adventure felt linear. It's hard not to expect the same in Bioware's new work. I love depthful storylines and dynamics, but not at the expense of control. Make it fluid. Bioware started campaigning this too early as well. It makes me wonder if that's a tactic to estimate potential interest and attract further investment than is already secured.
And lastly, there's the game that dropped off the face of the Earth: Possession. There were a couple videos about a year ago, but I haven't heard anything about it since. It was a fun idea, playing as a zombie commander in an attempt to convert the whole city.
Anyway, back to my schoolwork. =/
I was surprised to realize that I'm instinctively using my Sim City experience as a model for the situation. For example, one of my questions is: "Is the thoroughfare/bridge in an industrial, commercial, or residential district?" I only played the original version of the game, so I can't call on the intricacies which are probably present in newer versions. Anyway, I realize now that Sim City did quite a bit to introduce me to the real strife of urban planning.
It makes me wonder how other games have affected my knowledge or perception of the world in small ways like that.
On a mildly related note: I reviewed a couple of old video presentations of Spore today. It's still the upcoming game I'm most anxious to play. In any RPG that offers character customization, I usually spend hours tweaking my characters to be just right. That part's a game in itself. So the prospect of an entire game built around that particular avenue of fun has me drooling to no end.
I also reviewed some Hellgate: London videos. That one's still in my Must-Have category, but I think the shine has worn off a bit. I believe a lot of that has to do with the underwhelming sound effects, as I previously discussed. I also hate seeing missile weapons (bullets, rockets, arrows, etc) that have no visible force of impact. The punch is important.
I noticed on Hellgate's site that there's a rough release date now of "summer 07". As pleased as I am that I don't have to wait until winter to get my hands on it (maybe... we'll see, right?), I'm irritated when any publisher or developer talks of release more than a month in advance. Even rough dates like that are so often false in this industry that early dates always sound disingenuine. Just tell me when it's done and on its way to manufacturing.
Speaking of false release publicity, here we are approaching March and Alan Wake is nowhere to be seen. I can't say I've ever been that excited about this one though. It got a lot of hype for graphics, but there's next to no information concerning gameplay. I'm betting that it will feel something like Condemned; good for a rental, but not worth buying.
On the other hand, Mass Effect has me more excited than I used to be. I guess I have more of an impression of open-ended gameplay now. KotOR, for me, was a rental. It offered some character customization, but the adventure felt linear. It's hard not to expect the same in Bioware's new work. I love depthful storylines and dynamics, but not at the expense of control. Make it fluid. Bioware started campaigning this too early as well. It makes me wonder if that's a tactic to estimate potential interest and attract further investment than is already secured.
And lastly, there's the game that dropped off the face of the Earth: Possession. There were a couple videos about a year ago, but I haven't heard anything about it since. It was a fun idea, playing as a zombie commander in an attempt to convert the whole city.
Anyway, back to my schoolwork. =/
Monday, February 05, 2007
grande finales and FPS wars
THE BATTLE TO END ALL BATTLES
My brother and I finished our multiplayer"War of the Ring" campaign in Battle for Middle Earth 2 today. We both much prefer that Risk-like gamemode to isolated skirmishes.
Unfortunately, as usual, the final battle felt somewhat anti-climactic. In fact, we were able to "auto-resolve" the battle...meaning we didn't even play it, really. But even when we do have to actually play the final battle, and even in single-player WotR games, the battle is usually small and never as tough as some of the battles toward the beginning of the war.
In scripted campaigns, including non-RTS campaigns, the finale is typically the climax. It's just more fun that way.
So, it makes sense for a multiplayer RTS game to feature a mechanic that seeks to ensure difficulty in the final battle. It might be a morale boost for the defender(s), buffing stats. It might be a special ability tied into the particular game's lore (like the ability to summon the spirits of the ancestors for aid; or boosts to factory production). Or it might be an environmental effect that confounds everybody (think of the storm in the battle at Helm's Deep in the LOTR film...something that changes the mood or, better, the challenges particular to that battle).
This could also apply to other multiplayer genres, such as FPS.
FPS BATTLES TO FPS WAR
Maybe it already exists and I haven't seen it yet. Maybe I've even played one but don't remember.
Anyway, it would be great to see a Risk-style mode, similar to "War of the Ring" in BfME:2, for an FPS game. Star Wars: Battlefront had something close (but shy), as I recall, but something more depthful and available in multiplayer would be a blast.
In fact, SW:B could be mixed with BfME:2 in a lot of ways to make a hell of a game. Imagine as many factions as the latter's being available to combine cooperatively with a friend against another alliance of factions. Imagine as wide a variety of unit abilities and bonus abilities (like the Powers of BfME:2) in an FPS as exist in the LOTR game.
I guess that's another concept I'll have to start fleshing out, but I hope someone tries something like that before I do.
My brother and I finished our multiplayer"War of the Ring" campaign in Battle for Middle Earth 2 today. We both much prefer that Risk-like gamemode to isolated skirmishes.
Unfortunately, as usual, the final battle felt somewhat anti-climactic. In fact, we were able to "auto-resolve" the battle...meaning we didn't even play it, really. But even when we do have to actually play the final battle, and even in single-player WotR games, the battle is usually small and never as tough as some of the battles toward the beginning of the war.
In scripted campaigns, including non-RTS campaigns, the finale is typically the climax. It's just more fun that way.
So, it makes sense for a multiplayer RTS game to feature a mechanic that seeks to ensure difficulty in the final battle. It might be a morale boost for the defender(s), buffing stats. It might be a special ability tied into the particular game's lore (like the ability to summon the spirits of the ancestors for aid; or boosts to factory production). Or it might be an environmental effect that confounds everybody (think of the storm in the battle at Helm's Deep in the LOTR film...something that changes the mood or, better, the challenges particular to that battle).
This could also apply to other multiplayer genres, such as FPS.
FPS BATTLES TO FPS WAR
Maybe it already exists and I haven't seen it yet. Maybe I've even played one but don't remember.
Anyway, it would be great to see a Risk-style mode, similar to "War of the Ring" in BfME:2, for an FPS game. Star Wars: Battlefront had something close (but shy), as I recall, but something more depthful and available in multiplayer would be a blast.
In fact, SW:B could be mixed with BfME:2 in a lot of ways to make a hell of a game. Imagine as many factions as the latter's being available to combine cooperatively with a friend against another alliance of factions. Imagine as wide a variety of unit abilities and bonus abilities (like the Powers of BfME:2) in an FPS as exist in the LOTR game.
I guess that's another concept I'll have to start fleshing out, but I hope someone tries something like that before I do.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
games for the deaf and blind
Thanks to Sara for pointing this out. I already had 1UP bookmarked, but I have too many sites bookmarked to keep up with.
In response to this 1UP article: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3156848.
HARDWARE SOLUTIONS
Some problems seem like they could be better overcome through hardware.
A mouse with a 4-point vibration system (forward, back, left, right) could indicate to a deaf person the direction of a sound relative to the player's character. Really, there's probably a lot of people with intact hearing as well who could appreciate such a device. A lot of people have poor sound systems. Others play at very low volume in the wee hours of the night, when family is sleeping. And still others have frequency-specific deafness, which can fool a person into believing he or she is hearing everything.
For the blind, a braille image translator (they're probably already available). I don't mean that it would translate absolutely everything in detail while the gamer is playing. One possibility is that it could translate figures' borders from the image during gameplay, so the blind person could feel with one hand while controlling his or her character with the mouse. This would not only give the person a general picture of the scene, but it would also simulate depth perception. Another possibility is for the blind person to access a compilation of detailed figure models, before starting gameplay, to learn at leisure. This system would work better with a braille machine employing multiple degrees of dot elevation.
SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
I think an increasing amount of attention is being paid to game audio these days, which is great. But my impression is that it is still rare for foley designers to be present from the beginning of the concept-implementation phase. This is unfortunate for many reasons (for one, it disallows audio from helping shape video; trust me, it can), but it particularly affects the blind. An increased amount of well-crafted sound effects could go a long way in aiding the blind to imagine the scene and events.
I tend to watch DVDs these days with subtitles (a friend got me hooked). Often, the problem with subtitles is not that they are absent. The problem is that they are imprecise, unclear in meaning, set against a colored backwash which makes the words difficult to read, or (particularly in games) are too small. The last is particularly annoying, since one would think it is so easy to program a game to communicate with its console/PC, determine the resolution, and adjust the text size accordinly; or simply give the player the option of adjusting text size. A lack of semantic clarity and imprecision are likely the result of rushed inclusion of the feature or use of non-writers in translating audio to print. It's terribly unfortunate when important nuances, like voice (dialect), are lost in translation.
MUSIC FOR THE DEAF
The deaf may not be able to appreciate music like people with hearing, but I am certain they can appreciate it in alternate ways. The three core components of music pitch, rhythym, and volume.
Rhythym can easily be communicated through touch. Alone by itself, it can be enough to give one a thrill. Preferrably, whatever hardware communicated rhythym would be apart from the keyboard, mouse, or joystick; but it may have to be located on relatively sensitive skin in order to express rhythyms of fast tempos and staccato. A pair of such objects might even be used overlapping rhythymic parts (melody and accompaniement).
Pitch can be communicated visually. I've been a musician all of my life, and a songwriter/composer for most of it. Music has a visual element for me. If I'm listening to music, I'll often "conduct" with my hand using visual representations of melody. That is... my hand rises with ascending notes and falls with descending notes, by degree. Smooth hand motions represent audial slurs. Jabs/punches represent accented notes. A graphic representation could be produced that follows the same logic, and perhaps even uses separate bars (or whatever) of different colors to represent overlapping notes or instruments. This representation could easily be designed to be noticeable but unobtrusive, such as on a framed border of the screen.
I am not positive that deaf people have a sense of pitch, but they might. They do feel vibrations, and perhaps the deaf are able to notice a "tonal" difference between vibrations of equal strength, depending on what object causes it. But, if the deaf don't have a sense of pitch, a visual representation would, I'm certain, still be appealing to them.
And, of course, volume can be communicated both tactilely and visually. Disney's Fantasia does a wonderful job of visually expressing volume. The brightening and bleeding of colors beyond their frame is one method.
I have a blind friend at my university. I'll try to remember to ask him sometime what his thoughts on this subject are.
I would certainly like to see games made more accessible to other disabilities. I had a relative with MS who was extremely limited in mobility during his last several years. I think he would have loved video games, had they been around.
Addendum 2/20
I spoke at length with my blind friend this morning, who has heard of video games for the blind and is interested in trying them. He has only been blind for about five years, so he could not speak for those who were born blind. However, he did graciously offer to speak with a local community of the blind about the subject of video game accessibility, so I might have more input in the coming weeks.
I asked my friend if he could recall any special difficulties with audio, but he couldn't think of any that don't bother sighted people as well.
He did like the hardware suggestions listed above, but there is one issue that would need to be resolved. In regard to text, he much prefers communication by braille text over computer vocalizations; for clarity, precision, and other reasons. That raises the question of how best to enable him to read chat dialogue, view the screen image (through the braille image translator), and control his character all at the same time.
In response to this 1UP article: http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3156848.
HARDWARE SOLUTIONS
Some problems seem like they could be better overcome through hardware.
A mouse with a 4-point vibration system (forward, back, left, right) could indicate to a deaf person the direction of a sound relative to the player's character. Really, there's probably a lot of people with intact hearing as well who could appreciate such a device. A lot of people have poor sound systems. Others play at very low volume in the wee hours of the night, when family is sleeping. And still others have frequency-specific deafness, which can fool a person into believing he or she is hearing everything.
For the blind, a braille image translator (they're probably already available). I don't mean that it would translate absolutely everything in detail while the gamer is playing. One possibility is that it could translate figures' borders from the image during gameplay, so the blind person could feel with one hand while controlling his or her character with the mouse. This would not only give the person a general picture of the scene, but it would also simulate depth perception. Another possibility is for the blind person to access a compilation of detailed figure models, before starting gameplay, to learn at leisure. This system would work better with a braille machine employing multiple degrees of dot elevation.
SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
I think an increasing amount of attention is being paid to game audio these days, which is great. But my impression is that it is still rare for foley designers to be present from the beginning of the concept-implementation phase. This is unfortunate for many reasons (for one, it disallows audio from helping shape video; trust me, it can), but it particularly affects the blind. An increased amount of well-crafted sound effects could go a long way in aiding the blind to imagine the scene and events.
I tend to watch DVDs these days with subtitles (a friend got me hooked). Often, the problem with subtitles is not that they are absent. The problem is that they are imprecise, unclear in meaning, set against a colored backwash which makes the words difficult to read, or (particularly in games) are too small. The last is particularly annoying, since one would think it is so easy to program a game to communicate with its console/PC, determine the resolution, and adjust the text size accordinly; or simply give the player the option of adjusting text size. A lack of semantic clarity and imprecision are likely the result of rushed inclusion of the feature or use of non-writers in translating audio to print. It's terribly unfortunate when important nuances, like voice (dialect), are lost in translation.
MUSIC FOR THE DEAF
The deaf may not be able to appreciate music like people with hearing, but I am certain they can appreciate it in alternate ways. The three core components of music pitch, rhythym, and volume.
Rhythym can easily be communicated through touch. Alone by itself, it can be enough to give one a thrill. Preferrably, whatever hardware communicated rhythym would be apart from the keyboard, mouse, or joystick; but it may have to be located on relatively sensitive skin in order to express rhythyms of fast tempos and staccato. A pair of such objects might even be used overlapping rhythymic parts (melody and accompaniement).
Pitch can be communicated visually. I've been a musician all of my life, and a songwriter/composer for most of it. Music has a visual element for me. If I'm listening to music, I'll often "conduct" with my hand using visual representations of melody. That is... my hand rises with ascending notes and falls with descending notes, by degree. Smooth hand motions represent audial slurs. Jabs/punches represent accented notes. A graphic representation could be produced that follows the same logic, and perhaps even uses separate bars (or whatever) of different colors to represent overlapping notes or instruments. This representation could easily be designed to be noticeable but unobtrusive, such as on a framed border of the screen.
I am not positive that deaf people have a sense of pitch, but they might. They do feel vibrations, and perhaps the deaf are able to notice a "tonal" difference between vibrations of equal strength, depending on what object causes it. But, if the deaf don't have a sense of pitch, a visual representation would, I'm certain, still be appealing to them.
And, of course, volume can be communicated both tactilely and visually. Disney's Fantasia does a wonderful job of visually expressing volume. The brightening and bleeding of colors beyond their frame is one method.
I have a blind friend at my university. I'll try to remember to ask him sometime what his thoughts on this subject are.
I would certainly like to see games made more accessible to other disabilities. I had a relative with MS who was extremely limited in mobility during his last several years. I think he would have loved video games, had they been around.
Addendum 2/20
I spoke at length with my blind friend this morning, who has heard of video games for the blind and is interested in trying them. He has only been blind for about five years, so he could not speak for those who were born blind. However, he did graciously offer to speak with a local community of the blind about the subject of video game accessibility, so I might have more input in the coming weeks.
I asked my friend if he could recall any special difficulties with audio, but he couldn't think of any that don't bother sighted people as well.
He did like the hardware suggestions listed above, but there is one issue that would need to be resolved. In regard to text, he much prefers communication by braille text over computer vocalizations; for clarity, precision, and other reasons. That raises the question of how best to enable him to read chat dialogue, view the screen image (through the braille image translator), and control his character all at the same time.
unequal opportunities: a good thing
Just a brief reprint of a comment I made over at Sara's:
It is not necessary to offer every player the same range of available gameplay experiences. Look at the roles of individuals in real life and society. The trick for developers is to create and arrange possible player roles so that they interconnect and augment one another in compliment. One player’s experiences do not have to be as complex as another’s.
Among other things, this means that it is not necessary to force the amateur gamer to accept a pro’s control scheme.
Certainly per situation, if not on the macro level, it is alright for two players in an adventure party to have vastly differently levels of demand placed upon them.
For example: In reality, it's generally just fine with me that I'm driving and having to actively engage traffic while a friend is merely being an idle passenger or navigating. I still appreciate his or her company, despite that pressures upon me are greater than those upon my friend. And, of course, if I get into a wreck, my friend will get to share that, too. ;) From the passenger's perspective, it can be perfectly entertaining to simply observe, converse, and be of only mild help to the driver.
I believe this works on the scale of extended gameplay as well, with one player's character being essentially different in range of expectations and capabilities throughout that player's entire gameplay experience than another player's.
In fact, one might even apply it to visual presentation. There is already tremendous difference in presentation between the gameplay experience of a player using a "High" graphics setting and a player using a "Low" graphics setting. In EQ2, alternate vision types were made toggleable for particular races; vision types like ultravision, nightvision, and infrared. If a game were designed so that alternate characters were encouraged, then it might be viable for a character to have such a vision-type permanently. In Oblivion, some races see better in the dark than others. Things like this that affect the very essence of individual experiences are a welcome addition for exploration-oriented gamers, like myself, if not most gamers.
It is not necessary to offer every player the same range of available gameplay experiences. Look at the roles of individuals in real life and society. The trick for developers is to create and arrange possible player roles so that they interconnect and augment one another in compliment. One player’s experiences do not have to be as complex as another’s.
Among other things, this means that it is not necessary to force the amateur gamer to accept a pro’s control scheme.
Certainly per situation, if not on the macro level, it is alright for two players in an adventure party to have vastly differently levels of demand placed upon them.
For example: In reality, it's generally just fine with me that I'm driving and having to actively engage traffic while a friend is merely being an idle passenger or navigating. I still appreciate his or her company, despite that pressures upon me are greater than those upon my friend. And, of course, if I get into a wreck, my friend will get to share that, too. ;) From the passenger's perspective, it can be perfectly entertaining to simply observe, converse, and be of only mild help to the driver.
I believe this works on the scale of extended gameplay as well, with one player's character being essentially different in range of expectations and capabilities throughout that player's entire gameplay experience than another player's.
In fact, one might even apply it to visual presentation. There is already tremendous difference in presentation between the gameplay experience of a player using a "High" graphics setting and a player using a "Low" graphics setting. In EQ2, alternate vision types were made toggleable for particular races; vision types like ultravision, nightvision, and infrared. If a game were designed so that alternate characters were encouraged, then it might be viable for a character to have such a vision-type permanently. In Oblivion, some races see better in the dark than others. Things like this that affect the very essence of individual experiences are a welcome addition for exploration-oriented gamers, like myself, if not most gamers.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
empathy
Criticisms of violence in games are essentially about a lack of empathy. Behavior modeling, presented in person or via media (like games), are a constant source of learning...for adults as well (learning how to live doesn't end in our teens or twenties). Questions about the appropriateness and nature of violence in art have been raised since Plato, if not before. The main concern has always been that art must not discourage empathy where empathy is due; conversely, it should encourage perverse empathy (anything good can be perverted into an evil shadow).
Where empathy is due is a matter of reasonable debate, but let's explore methods of its communication. If nothing more, perhaps this will help some of us to achieve our goal of making game stories (verbal and non-verbal) as compelling as celebrated dramatic works.
THE SIGNS
In Gears of War, the player can smile as his character takes the face off an enemy with a chainsaw and says "Nice!". The player is able to enjoy this because of disassociation. He perceives the enemy as an object, rather than a person with whom he can empathize.
In Call of Duty: 2, the player can see a fellow soldier ripped to shreds by machinegun fire and never think of the fallen soldier again. In real war, it may often be necessary to focus on one's enemy before looking to one's fallen comrade, but would one simply leave the mate behind like dropped popcorn?
In games like Neverwinter Nights, in which the player may choose between a variety of henchmen, I'd venture to say that few players choose a particular henchmen for more than complimentary powers or skills. How often does the NPC's personality come into play?
PERSONAL, NOT HUMAN
Empathetic value results from a perception of personal kinship, rather than of human kinship.
The Locust in Gears of War are what we often call "humanoid", separated from humanity by only a handful of characteristics. Their similarity to humans...in body, behavior, and language...is an appeal to empathy, but falls short enough that most Western guys aren't afraid to laugh as we slice our enemy in half.
Now consider a wild, snarling Rottweiler. Could most players saw through the dog's head with as much glee as they would a Locust? I doubt it. But they might still enjoy it.
What if the dog was not aggressive? What if it stood before the player with its head down in submission? What if it seemed happy to see the player, wagging its tail excitedly? How would it feel then for the player to saw the animal's body in two?
Lastly, think back to the Locust of Gears of War, and try to imagine one that was culturally and personally unlike its fellows. Try to imagine one without menace in its expression as it sits back and smokes on a pipe. Imagine one smiling as it watches two young squirrels chase each other around a tree. Ugly as the Locust is, would you then still feel fine carving it into a bloody mess?
IT'S NOT COMPLEXITY
Things don't need to be complex or even have cognition to be objects of empathy.
Southerners often perceive an old Live Oak much the same as they would perceive an old person. It's almost criminal to kill a tree that's lived over a century just because you don't like the inconvenience of having to build around it. We perceive the tree as a living being that has outlasted many hardships and has a wealth of experience, much like a person. Bear in mind, these aren't tree-huggers I'm talking about; these are no-nonsense country folks. I'm sure people from all parts of the nation, all parts of the world, perceive their own local trees in a similar light sometimes.
The point is that even a tree, an inanimate object, can take on aspects of personhood and have empathetic value.
THINGS TO TRY
Enemy/Ally
How about tackling that muddy ground of distinguishing between an "enemy" (a label which discourages empathy) and an ally? In the early years of World War I, German and English soldiers once sang Christmas songs together from their separate trenches. Some even got out to shake hands and share Christmas gifts. This is an exceptional example of empathy between enemies, but it is common for soldiers to witness acts and objects which encourage such empathy (if only temporarily).
In a video game, a player could be encouraged to sneak slowly upon his enemy. During the approach, the player might witness any number of empathy-encouraging acts...such as talk of children, talk of home or favorite meals, whistling a familiar tune, exhibiting symptoms of a cold, etc.. This does create a more serious tone and a greater degree of care expected of the game developer. But as I've said before, "games" don't need to be fun; they need to be appealing, and that may be as Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List were appealing.
Keep in mind, empathy for enemies needn't be limited to violent situations. An equally compelling situation may be created in which the player perceives a character as both a friend and an enemy. A relative who has a long history of support for you but believes in an opposing cause can be a point of deep trouble and contemplation.
True Comradery
One way of encouraging the player to take personal interest in an NPC comrade is for the player to witness a painful sacrifice that NPC makes for the player.
The pain is the key there. Developers tend to avoid realistic presentation of pain in their games. John Cleese once said that a Vietnam-era American audience didn't seem to appreciate the humor of the black knight losing his limbs in The Holy Grail until they recognized the absence of pain. An absence of realistic pain in supposedly painful situations discourages empathy.
True, charming dialogue can make an NPC likeable, but few things invite personal concern so quickly and effectively as a loving sacrifice. If you can create a situation in which the player watches that sacrifice, like the NPC shoving the player out of an enemy's crosshairs to inadvertently take the bullet (to use a clichè example), and the player's attention is drawn to details, such as the injured man's labored breathing and weakness, then the player will be much more likely to take notice when the NPC is harmed or killed later in the game.
Personality Matters
Sometimes, one's personality has a suggestive effect, such as annoyance or inspiration. If a player must decide between possible companions, it's possible to include among valid considerations that a less combat-capable NPC is clever and able to aid in intellectual/social tasks (think of the archeologist in the Stargate film). On the other hand, an extremely combat-capable NPC might have such an annoying or abrasive personality that the player bypasses his/her obvious abilities (that NPC's design costs would obviously have to be justified somehow, such as future story involvement: "You could have shared this power with me, but you chose the snivelling sage!").
Or an NPC's personality can have a more immediate and tangible effect. If I understand correctly, Bioware's Mass Effect will present the player with the possibility of violent dissent among companions. It may also be interesting for companions to commit acts of treachery or aid behind the player's back. This could sometimes be visible to the player (such as the companion leaving the player's side to whisper to another NPC) or it might be hidden (story events during game-level transitions).
Needless to say, there are many opportunities for improvement in the promotion of empathy in games. Empathy's purposes go far beyond qualifying presentations of violence, but that's what got me thinking on the subject.
Where empathy is due is a matter of reasonable debate, but let's explore methods of its communication. If nothing more, perhaps this will help some of us to achieve our goal of making game stories (verbal and non-verbal) as compelling as celebrated dramatic works.
THE SIGNS
In Gears of War, the player can smile as his character takes the face off an enemy with a chainsaw and says "Nice!". The player is able to enjoy this because of disassociation. He perceives the enemy as an object, rather than a person with whom he can empathize.
In Call of Duty: 2, the player can see a fellow soldier ripped to shreds by machinegun fire and never think of the fallen soldier again. In real war, it may often be necessary to focus on one's enemy before looking to one's fallen comrade, but would one simply leave the mate behind like dropped popcorn?
In games like Neverwinter Nights, in which the player may choose between a variety of henchmen, I'd venture to say that few players choose a particular henchmen for more than complimentary powers or skills. How often does the NPC's personality come into play?
PERSONAL, NOT HUMAN
Empathetic value results from a perception of personal kinship, rather than of human kinship.
The Locust in Gears of War are what we often call "humanoid", separated from humanity by only a handful of characteristics. Their similarity to humans...in body, behavior, and language...is an appeal to empathy, but falls short enough that most Western guys aren't afraid to laugh as we slice our enemy in half.
Now consider a wild, snarling Rottweiler. Could most players saw through the dog's head with as much glee as they would a Locust? I doubt it. But they might still enjoy it.
What if the dog was not aggressive? What if it stood before the player with its head down in submission? What if it seemed happy to see the player, wagging its tail excitedly? How would it feel then for the player to saw the animal's body in two?
Lastly, think back to the Locust of Gears of War, and try to imagine one that was culturally and personally unlike its fellows. Try to imagine one without menace in its expression as it sits back and smokes on a pipe. Imagine one smiling as it watches two young squirrels chase each other around a tree. Ugly as the Locust is, would you then still feel fine carving it into a bloody mess?
IT'S NOT COMPLEXITY
Things don't need to be complex or even have cognition to be objects of empathy.
Southerners often perceive an old Live Oak much the same as they would perceive an old person. It's almost criminal to kill a tree that's lived over a century just because you don't like the inconvenience of having to build around it. We perceive the tree as a living being that has outlasted many hardships and has a wealth of experience, much like a person. Bear in mind, these aren't tree-huggers I'm talking about; these are no-nonsense country folks. I'm sure people from all parts of the nation, all parts of the world, perceive their own local trees in a similar light sometimes.
The point is that even a tree, an inanimate object, can take on aspects of personhood and have empathetic value.
THINGS TO TRY
Enemy/Ally
How about tackling that muddy ground of distinguishing between an "enemy" (a label which discourages empathy) and an ally? In the early years of World War I, German and English soldiers once sang Christmas songs together from their separate trenches. Some even got out to shake hands and share Christmas gifts. This is an exceptional example of empathy between enemies, but it is common for soldiers to witness acts and objects which encourage such empathy (if only temporarily).
In a video game, a player could be encouraged to sneak slowly upon his enemy. During the approach, the player might witness any number of empathy-encouraging acts...such as talk of children, talk of home or favorite meals, whistling a familiar tune, exhibiting symptoms of a cold, etc.. This does create a more serious tone and a greater degree of care expected of the game developer. But as I've said before, "games" don't need to be fun; they need to be appealing, and that may be as Saving Private Ryan or Schindler's List were appealing.
Keep in mind, empathy for enemies needn't be limited to violent situations. An equally compelling situation may be created in which the player perceives a character as both a friend and an enemy. A relative who has a long history of support for you but believes in an opposing cause can be a point of deep trouble and contemplation.
True Comradery
One way of encouraging the player to take personal interest in an NPC comrade is for the player to witness a painful sacrifice that NPC makes for the player.
The pain is the key there. Developers tend to avoid realistic presentation of pain in their games. John Cleese once said that a Vietnam-era American audience didn't seem to appreciate the humor of the black knight losing his limbs in The Holy Grail until they recognized the absence of pain. An absence of realistic pain in supposedly painful situations discourages empathy.
True, charming dialogue can make an NPC likeable, but few things invite personal concern so quickly and effectively as a loving sacrifice. If you can create a situation in which the player watches that sacrifice, like the NPC shoving the player out of an enemy's crosshairs to inadvertently take the bullet (to use a clichè example), and the player's attention is drawn to details, such as the injured man's labored breathing and weakness, then the player will be much more likely to take notice when the NPC is harmed or killed later in the game.
Personality Matters
Sometimes, one's personality has a suggestive effect, such as annoyance or inspiration. If a player must decide between possible companions, it's possible to include among valid considerations that a less combat-capable NPC is clever and able to aid in intellectual/social tasks (think of the archeologist in the Stargate film). On the other hand, an extremely combat-capable NPC might have such an annoying or abrasive personality that the player bypasses his/her obvious abilities (that NPC's design costs would obviously have to be justified somehow, such as future story involvement: "You could have shared this power with me, but you chose the snivelling sage!").
Or an NPC's personality can have a more immediate and tangible effect. If I understand correctly, Bioware's Mass Effect will present the player with the possibility of violent dissent among companions. It may also be interesting for companions to commit acts of treachery or aid behind the player's back. This could sometimes be visible to the player (such as the companion leaving the player's side to whisper to another NPC) or it might be hidden (story events during game-level transitions).
Needless to say, there are many opportunities for improvement in the promotion of empathy in games. Empathy's purposes go far beyond qualifying presentations of violence, but that's what got me thinking on the subject.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
dwelling on darkness
In drama, there is often a tendency to dwell on the darkness and pain. It can be easier to capture an audience with sadness than with joy. We should make a conscious effort to focus some gameplay experiences on events of joy and comfort; not just the resolution of a crisis, the avoidance of catastrophe, but also the discovery of new levels of happiness and fulfillment.
I was just thinking that most upbeat moments in game stories are, if not humor, little more than the end of unhappiness. Joy should take us far beyond mere relief.
I was just thinking that most upbeat moments in game stories are, if not humor, little more than the end of unhappiness. Joy should take us far beyond mere relief.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Perspective of Sound
I may have mentioned this before, but it's worth restating. I was looking at my computer's background, a painting by Caspar David Friedrich called Moonrise by the Sea, and considering the illusion of perspective artists create by making objects in the background smaller than objects in the foreground.
It reminds me of an element that seldom appears in games and is sorely missed: a thorough perspective of sound.
When I was young, I watched nature shows all the time. I was fascinated to learn that a lion's roar, an elephant's trumpet, or the howl of a howler monkey can be heard from over a mile away. When walking in the woods, I can hear not only what directly surrounds me, but creatures and events a great distance away.
Current games commonly make use of positional audio and surround sound. But they still tend to offer the player only those sounds immediately around the character. In Gears of War, the player catches fleeting glimpses of great monsters and bosses levels before having to engage those enemies. The same thing can be accomplished with sound...and with the added value of inspiring the player's imagination to create its own figures of horror.
Extended perspective of sound needn't be limited to frightening sounds, of course. A howler monkey, for example, is hardly a frightening animal. The effects of creature noises can range from the frightening and disorienting to the angelic and inspirational. There are also environmental sounds such as waterfalls, landslides, encroaching thunder, the easy to misinterpret wailing of wind, etc.
Distant sounds can even be used to have more direct non-mood effects on player actions. Suppose the player is unknowingly surrounded by many creatures of a particular type, but only one voices a call at a time. The player may hear noises to the north. When he crosses a particular threshold, the noises shift to the west (different beings, but of the same voice). This could be used to disorient the player, leading the player to believe he is tracking a particular individual when he is actually being led in circles...or toward a trap.
One of Oblivion and Vanguard's big selling points is the vast range of visibility it offers to its players. It would be nice if game developers would employ the same range of player perspective with sound effects as they do with visuals.
It reminds me of an element that seldom appears in games and is sorely missed: a thorough perspective of sound.
When I was young, I watched nature shows all the time. I was fascinated to learn that a lion's roar, an elephant's trumpet, or the howl of a howler monkey can be heard from over a mile away. When walking in the woods, I can hear not only what directly surrounds me, but creatures and events a great distance away.
Current games commonly make use of positional audio and surround sound. But they still tend to offer the player only those sounds immediately around the character. In Gears of War, the player catches fleeting glimpses of great monsters and bosses levels before having to engage those enemies. The same thing can be accomplished with sound...and with the added value of inspiring the player's imagination to create its own figures of horror.
Extended perspective of sound needn't be limited to frightening sounds, of course. A howler monkey, for example, is hardly a frightening animal. The effects of creature noises can range from the frightening and disorienting to the angelic and inspirational. There are also environmental sounds such as waterfalls, landslides, encroaching thunder, the easy to misinterpret wailing of wind, etc.
Distant sounds can even be used to have more direct non-mood effects on player actions. Suppose the player is unknowingly surrounded by many creatures of a particular type, but only one voices a call at a time. The player may hear noises to the north. When he crosses a particular threshold, the noises shift to the west (different beings, but of the same voice). This could be used to disorient the player, leading the player to believe he is tracking a particular individual when he is actually being led in circles...or toward a trap.
One of Oblivion and Vanguard's big selling points is the vast range of visibility it offers to its players. It would be nice if game developers would employ the same range of player perspective with sound effects as they do with visuals.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Technical Writing
So I started my Technical & Professional Writing course today. It was supposed to begin last week, but San Antonio had ice on the roads and we don't get that a lot down here (even less so where I come from).
The introduction impressed me for two reasons. First, we will focus on writing and collaborative techniques more typical of most business opportunities than the critical research papers most college English courses focus on. Second, our instruction will be largely experential, placing us in a volunteer contract position with a non-profit organization.
The reasons I am impressed are the same reasons that I am unimpressed. My first and only such course should not have come at the last semester of my senior year. It never struck me so blazingly before how inappropriate most college English coursework is, with so myopic an obsession with creative fiction and critical research.
Or rather, it was never so clear to me how sorely baccalaureate English programs need to be divided into two programs: one which prepares the student to become a creative writer, a poet or teacher of literature; and one which prepares the student for the majority of employment positions for writers...public relations, advertisement, publishing, instructional writing, corporate outlines and memos, etc.. These vastly different modes of writing merit independent degrees.
For example, this will be the first class under an English department, as opposed to a Computer Science department, that I have witnessed which will instruct students how to correlate texts with visuals...as one would be expected to do in advertising and marketing positions.
Perhaps a division between these different modes of writing is realized in separate degrees at many universities, but none that I have attended or considered attending offered such foresight.
Anyway, I've had experience with many types of technical writing before, but I'm looking forward to the more formal and guided experience this class seems to be offering.
The introduction impressed me for two reasons. First, we will focus on writing and collaborative techniques more typical of most business opportunities than the critical research papers most college English courses focus on. Second, our instruction will be largely experential, placing us in a volunteer contract position with a non-profit organization.
The reasons I am impressed are the same reasons that I am unimpressed. My first and only such course should not have come at the last semester of my senior year. It never struck me so blazingly before how inappropriate most college English coursework is, with so myopic an obsession with creative fiction and critical research.
Or rather, it was never so clear to me how sorely baccalaureate English programs need to be divided into two programs: one which prepares the student to become a creative writer, a poet or teacher of literature; and one which prepares the student for the majority of employment positions for writers...public relations, advertisement, publishing, instructional writing, corporate outlines and memos, etc.. These vastly different modes of writing merit independent degrees.
For example, this will be the first class under an English department, as opposed to a Computer Science department, that I have witnessed which will instruct students how to correlate texts with visuals...as one would be expected to do in advertising and marketing positions.
Perhaps a division between these different modes of writing is realized in separate degrees at many universities, but none that I have attended or considered attending offered such foresight.
Anyway, I've had experience with many types of technical writing before, but I'm looking forward to the more formal and guided experience this class seems to be offering.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
MMO cutscenes
I like cutscenes when they're fluidly implemented from normal art assets. Neverwinter Nights merely took control of the camera and scripted events with the usual models. Battle for Middle Earth 2 does it slightly different, fading the usual art into something more like painting...but really not that far from the original models.
I'd like to see this done in an MMORPG. Imagine having just triggered or come into contact with a major story event; the camera swings into first-person view, and you watch (the camera turns and zooms as necessary) as a scripted conversation or other situation unfolds before you... something akin to the cutscenes in the Condemned 360 demo. Maybe the artists even have a way of applying a temporary effect to the scene to make the normal models appear more cinematic.
If the game is capable of making your character's face provide expressions, then maybe the camera will swing around in a 3rd-person view to show your character reacting to, or taking place in, the events. Honestly though, I like cinematic story progression mostly when it doesn't employ my character significantly, because I like as complete control as I can get over my character's actions and personality.
Anyway, I've heard about a couple MMOGs having cinematics before, but it didn't sound like they shared the incorporative style of Neverwinter Nights cutscenes.
I'd be particularly interested in seeing a method like this used to bring the audience (player) into the perspective of his or her antagonists at times. I'm still thinking about how best to do that though.
I'd like to see this done in an MMORPG. Imagine having just triggered or come into contact with a major story event; the camera swings into first-person view, and you watch (the camera turns and zooms as necessary) as a scripted conversation or other situation unfolds before you... something akin to the cutscenes in the Condemned 360 demo. Maybe the artists even have a way of applying a temporary effect to the scene to make the normal models appear more cinematic.
If the game is capable of making your character's face provide expressions, then maybe the camera will swing around in a 3rd-person view to show your character reacting to, or taking place in, the events. Honestly though, I like cinematic story progression mostly when it doesn't employ my character significantly, because I like as complete control as I can get over my character's actions and personality.
Anyway, I've heard about a couple MMOGs having cinematics before, but it didn't sound like they shared the incorporative style of Neverwinter Nights cutscenes.
I'd be particularly interested in seeing a method like this used to bring the audience (player) into the perspective of his or her antagonists at times. I'm still thinking about how best to do that though.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
manner of expression
I've noticed a lot of folks commenting on the hullabaloo surrounding the Columbine game. Of course, most of what I've read is people saying that the game is at least respectable for its willingness to ask the hard questions. I'm still out-of-town, and I'm not all that interested anyway, so I haven't tried out the game yet. But I would like to make a general comment about situations like this, if not this specific situation.
It's not only what you say that matters, but how you say it. There's a reason we don't accept the comments of young kids until they say them respectfully (without yelling, abrasive language, insults, etc). There is no reason we shouldn't maintain expectations of respect with adults. The manner in which actions are performed has an impact, and it is the responsibility of all individuals to attempt to maintain the most thoughtful and peaceful manner possible.
Peace without justice and truth is not a good thing. It is sometimes necessary to be loud or rough to force witness to reality and responsibility. This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
In a case like the Columbine shooting or a similar atrocity, a confrontational manner is not necessary to make such a breakthrough. If the game designers truly wanted thoughtful consideration of the influences upon the killers and their motives, then the most effective avenue of approach would have been to begin sympathetically with the designers' opposition and make the explorative journey together. Any playing out of the actual shooting would be counter-productive (I don't know if the game includes such a phase).
In any case, many things for which censorship calls are made are rightfully censored...not because the message is impermissable, but because the manner in which the message is delivered is immature and needlessly disruptive or aggressive. Concern for others can and should be expected from all, individuals and companies alike.
It's easy to tell when confrontation is genuinely aimed at coming together and when it's just childish, hopeless confrontation.
It's not only what you say that matters, but how you say it. There's a reason we don't accept the comments of young kids until they say them respectfully (without yelling, abrasive language, insults, etc). There is no reason we shouldn't maintain expectations of respect with adults. The manner in which actions are performed has an impact, and it is the responsibility of all individuals to attempt to maintain the most thoughtful and peaceful manner possible.
Peace without justice and truth is not a good thing. It is sometimes necessary to be loud or rough to force witness to reality and responsibility. This doesn't seem to be one of those times.
In a case like the Columbine shooting or a similar atrocity, a confrontational manner is not necessary to make such a breakthrough. If the game designers truly wanted thoughtful consideration of the influences upon the killers and their motives, then the most effective avenue of approach would have been to begin sympathetically with the designers' opposition and make the explorative journey together. Any playing out of the actual shooting would be counter-productive (I don't know if the game includes such a phase).
In any case, many things for which censorship calls are made are rightfully censored...not because the message is impermissable, but because the manner in which the message is delivered is immature and needlessly disruptive or aggressive. Concern for others can and should be expected from all, individuals and companies alike.
It's easy to tell when confrontation is genuinely aimed at coming together and when it's just childish, hopeless confrontation.
the appeal of familiarity
"She's putting her face on."
It's a great way of saying a woman's putting on her makeup. Someone said it today and I thought it could make for an interesting creature/NPC concept: one that puts its face on, literally.
Then I wondered... Could frequent real-world allusions like this in a game add a layer of player satisfaction without disrupting positive escapism?
People who read Tolkien's LOTR book before they saw the films, people who saw the Star Wars films before playing the video games, people who experienced the boardgame Clue before the film (or vis versa); all of these are familiar with the additional layer of appeal which comes from recognition of the elements from the first media representation in the second representation. When I played SWG, hearing those classic Star Wars musical themes went a long way in augmenting my enjoyment of the game. But what exactly is the nature of that enjoyment?
Is it nostalgia? If it is, then the experience alluded to must have made a pleasant impression for an allusion to also be pleasant. If the referenced experience provoked no emotional response whatsoever, like a bland and familiar expression (ex: "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), then an allusion would likely produce a similar lack of response...or annoyance at an intrusion of everyday life into the gameworld.
Or, rather than nostalgia, is it personal pride in making the connection? When I was younger, a game was common in which the player attempts to identify a common word, phrase or expression in a pictorial representation. "Head over heels" is an easy example to imagine.
If it's a mini-game like that, and not nostalgia, then perhaps a game could benefit from allusions to reality, like the figure which has to put its face on. I'm not suggesting that any game could do this. Where appropriate, however, the effect might be substantial.
It's a great way of saying a woman's putting on her makeup. Someone said it today and I thought it could make for an interesting creature/NPC concept: one that puts its face on, literally.
Then I wondered... Could frequent real-world allusions like this in a game add a layer of player satisfaction without disrupting positive escapism?
People who read Tolkien's LOTR book before they saw the films, people who saw the Star Wars films before playing the video games, people who experienced the boardgame Clue before the film (or vis versa); all of these are familiar with the additional layer of appeal which comes from recognition of the elements from the first media representation in the second representation. When I played SWG, hearing those classic Star Wars musical themes went a long way in augmenting my enjoyment of the game. But what exactly is the nature of that enjoyment?
Is it nostalgia? If it is, then the experience alluded to must have made a pleasant impression for an allusion to also be pleasant. If the referenced experience provoked no emotional response whatsoever, like a bland and familiar expression (ex: "don't count your chickens before they hatch"), then an allusion would likely produce a similar lack of response...or annoyance at an intrusion of everyday life into the gameworld.
Or, rather than nostalgia, is it personal pride in making the connection? When I was younger, a game was common in which the player attempts to identify a common word, phrase or expression in a pictorial representation. "Head over heels" is an easy example to imagine.
If it's a mini-game like that, and not nostalgia, then perhaps a game could benefit from allusions to reality, like the figure which has to put its face on. I'm not suggesting that any game could do this. Where appropriate, however, the effect might be substantial.
cooperative variables
In my last blog, one of the scenario examples I offered was of players saved from a particularly daunting battle by the discovery of a trapdoor. At the time, I thought it was a bit of a stretch for the players to happen to discover the trapdoor just when they need it. But, on reflection, such an occurrence needn't be a coincidence (from the dev's perspective).
Adventure movies are full of such jaw-dropping coincidences. Indiana Jones and his father are tied to chairs as fire spreads through the room and threatens to kill them both...but when they hop to the temporary safety of the fireplace, one of them happens to hit a lever which spins the fireplace (a secret door) to a room safe from the fire. Hans Solo finds himself at the mercy of an Imperial Cruiser and its fighter battalion, but there happens to be an asteroid field nearby in which to dodge and hide.
Going back to the tomb-trapdoor scenario, imagine that the trapdoor would not be revealed until such a great level of danger is present. One variable is dependent upon another. The group might experience a particular dungeon several times before variables combine to create a situation of high enough difficulty that the secret escape route is revealed/opened to the adventurers. Note that this is not a form of instancing which divides the gameworlds of separate players or groups (the creation of a temporary universe, like some of the quests in EQ2), but instead just a toggling of accessibility.
I'm sure this could be applied to scenarios other than setting variation, but that's the most obvious application.
Perhaps another could be a weapon that has a chance of producing a particular effect (ex: cast [X] debuff, add [y]-type damage, etc) and that effect has a chance of interacting with other variables to produce an additional effect. If a weapon happens to apply its frost effect during a battle with a Coldstone Golem, the golem will shatter like something transformed with liquid nitrogen. If the weapon's application of its frost effect was uncommon enough, then players would not be able to count on it to chop through an area of Coldstone Golems with ease, but just the chance of witnessing the consequence of the combined variables again would be enough to excite the players with anticipation. If similar combinations were common enough, then all players, including those who had never witnessed such an effect, would enjoy similar anticipation.
Fun can be produced, not only by the things players experience, but by the things they can hope to experience. Anticipation and surprise are vital elements.
Adventure movies are full of such jaw-dropping coincidences. Indiana Jones and his father are tied to chairs as fire spreads through the room and threatens to kill them both...but when they hop to the temporary safety of the fireplace, one of them happens to hit a lever which spins the fireplace (a secret door) to a room safe from the fire. Hans Solo finds himself at the mercy of an Imperial Cruiser and its fighter battalion, but there happens to be an asteroid field nearby in which to dodge and hide.
Going back to the tomb-trapdoor scenario, imagine that the trapdoor would not be revealed until such a great level of danger is present. One variable is dependent upon another. The group might experience a particular dungeon several times before variables combine to create a situation of high enough difficulty that the secret escape route is revealed/opened to the adventurers. Note that this is not a form of instancing which divides the gameworlds of separate players or groups (the creation of a temporary universe, like some of the quests in EQ2), but instead just a toggling of accessibility.
I'm sure this could be applied to scenarios other than setting variation, but that's the most obvious application.
Perhaps another could be a weapon that has a chance of producing a particular effect (ex: cast [X] debuff, add [y]-type damage, etc) and that effect has a chance of interacting with other variables to produce an additional effect. If a weapon happens to apply its frost effect during a battle with a Coldstone Golem, the golem will shatter like something transformed with liquid nitrogen. If the weapon's application of its frost effect was uncommon enough, then players would not be able to count on it to chop through an area of Coldstone Golems with ease, but just the chance of witnessing the consequence of the combined variables again would be enough to excite the players with anticipation. If similar combinations were common enough, then all players, including those who had never witnessed such an effect, would enjoy similar anticipation.
Fun can be produced, not only by the things players experience, but by the things they can hope to experience. Anticipation and surprise are vital elements.
rate of content consumption
A reprint of my response to York's post here: http://tatteredpage.net/archives/65
I don't think the best avenue of slowing content consumption is to encourage player-made content...though the social inventions of players (strategy sessions, group events, player ceremonies, etc) are very useful to that end.
Instead, the best route is increasing replayability through variation within static content. It's an old challenge, and one developers have tried and failed to overcome numerous times, to make content less linear, but it is achievable. SWG allowed a great deal of lateral exploration, and that game didn't explore half the methods I would use.
Here's an old example of mine: Imagine that players are exploring an Egyptian-like tomb full of statues of various sizes and representations. Each of the statues are inanimate until triggered to come alive by player presence or actions. Each has a different probability of being triggered, ranging from very unlikely to very likely. Those probabilities are not static...they are adjusted weekly, monthly or however often the developers desire (and those adjustments could be randomly determined by software, so the devs would not have to spend time on that). This means that the same player can explore this same tomb many times and continue to enjoy fresh experiences in doing so (assuming that other elements of the tomb experience vary as well). It also creates uniquely individual player experiences for memory (important to player retention) and social discourse.
Variation can make old content into fresh content. In Mario Kart, I enjoyed the same racetrack countless times because there was enough variability to make it fresh. In Counterstrike and Gears of War, players enjoy the same maps over and over because of the variation brought by their fellow players.
In MMOGs and RPGs, replayability in small experiences, not just the cumulative adventure (i.e., playing as an undead warlock instead of an orc warrior), can greatly reduce the average rate of content consumption.
That is not to say that it will prevent the most fanatical achievement-oriented gamers from continuing down a linear path. But personally, I don't consider that small population to be a great problem as long as you've got enough loyal, equally-vocal fans to counteract the publicity impact of ranters. The majority of achievement-oriented gamers, who are not so fanatical, would be able to enjoy the replayability.
Imagine: The first time your group traverses the main hall of that tomb, the avian statue and the wolf statue come alive for two separate battles. The second time through, four statues come alive, two of those at the same time for a bigger battle. The third time through, only one statue comes alive, but you also trigger a boobytrap that makes the single statue more difficult to fight (combinations of triggers could be limited in advance by developers to control the range of difficulty...though some of that control could be offered to individual players). The fourth time through, 6 statues come alive, three of them together and one of them a particularly formidable foe...but a trapdoor is discovered, allowing the group to escape.
That's the sort of gameworld I want to play in. =)
I don't think the best avenue of slowing content consumption is to encourage player-made content...though the social inventions of players (strategy sessions, group events, player ceremonies, etc) are very useful to that end.
Instead, the best route is increasing replayability through variation within static content. It's an old challenge, and one developers have tried and failed to overcome numerous times, to make content less linear, but it is achievable. SWG allowed a great deal of lateral exploration, and that game didn't explore half the methods I would use.
Here's an old example of mine: Imagine that players are exploring an Egyptian-like tomb full of statues of various sizes and representations. Each of the statues are inanimate until triggered to come alive by player presence or actions. Each has a different probability of being triggered, ranging from very unlikely to very likely. Those probabilities are not static...they are adjusted weekly, monthly or however often the developers desire (and those adjustments could be randomly determined by software, so the devs would not have to spend time on that). This means that the same player can explore this same tomb many times and continue to enjoy fresh experiences in doing so (assuming that other elements of the tomb experience vary as well). It also creates uniquely individual player experiences for memory (important to player retention) and social discourse.
Variation can make old content into fresh content. In Mario Kart, I enjoyed the same racetrack countless times because there was enough variability to make it fresh. In Counterstrike and Gears of War, players enjoy the same maps over and over because of the variation brought by their fellow players.
In MMOGs and RPGs, replayability in small experiences, not just the cumulative adventure (i.e., playing as an undead warlock instead of an orc warrior), can greatly reduce the average rate of content consumption.
That is not to say that it will prevent the most fanatical achievement-oriented gamers from continuing down a linear path. But personally, I don't consider that small population to be a great problem as long as you've got enough loyal, equally-vocal fans to counteract the publicity impact of ranters. The majority of achievement-oriented gamers, who are not so fanatical, would be able to enjoy the replayability.
Imagine: The first time your group traverses the main hall of that tomb, the avian statue and the wolf statue come alive for two separate battles. The second time through, four statues come alive, two of those at the same time for a bigger battle. The third time through, only one statue comes alive, but you also trigger a boobytrap that makes the single statue more difficult to fight (combinations of triggers could be limited in advance by developers to control the range of difficulty...though some of that control could be offered to individual players). The fourth time through, 6 statues come alive, three of them together and one of them a particularly formidable foe...but a trapdoor is discovered, allowing the group to escape.
That's the sort of gameworld I want to play in. =)
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Grice's Maxims
Here's a bit of miscellany, inspired by comparing my huge "5 things" response with the nice and short responses normal folk supplied: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfbxb/class/1900/prag/grice.htm
I'm particularly talented at violating the fourth maxim, but I excel at breaking them all.
I'm particularly talented at violating the fourth maxim, but I excel at breaking them all.
5 things
So, apparently I've been tagged...and by two people, one of which I wasn't even aware knew of my site (Sara). So for the 5 or so people who glance at my site from time to time (enough that I'm feeling guilty for neglecting it so much over the holidays), here's 5 odd things about me.
1. The left side of my body is colder than my right. I have mild scoleosis between my shoulderblades. My spine bends and twists, and the particular vertebrae affected influence blood circulation, among other things. So my naturally cold blood (thanks Mom) is even colder on my left side, resulting in the odd situation of my left hand being cold as ice while my right hand is just fine sometimes.
Over the years, I've come to think of this as somewhat representative of my whole person, in that I'm really a mix of many extremes. For just a couple examples, I enjoy Tori Amos as much as Pantera, reading Catholic apologetics as much as watching Bama football and violent, evil horror flicks. I can listen to a symphony and play the melody back to you after a little fiddling on my guitar, but I couldn't tell you what I was doing 5 minutes ago. Sometimes, I'm kind of like everyone in one, I think.
2. I love puns. That makes me evil, I know, but I can't help it. I'm not saying I make puns a lot...I'm just saying I can appreciate them. Blame it on my dad, who got me into watching Marx Brothers movies when I was young:
secretary: "Do you want that sentence in brackets?"
Groucho: "It will never make it there in brackets. Send it in a box."
3. I prefer just being around interesting people and talking (not chatting...not small-talk....i mean talking) to anything else. There's no game, no movie, or sport, or anything I wouldn't stop immediately to simply enjoy another person's company. I can get along with just about anybody. That doesn't mean I'm social. To the contrary, I'm usually alone outside of school or work and I always feel "outside" wherever I am (even my own family, to a degree). But I still love people (even when I hate them).
4. I'm strong-willed and often bull-headed, but I'm still probably the most easy-going person you'd ever meet. Even as I take things very seriously, I'm very relaxed about it. I'll joke as I argue with people. I'll eat pretty much anything put in front of me (even after it's been dropped on the floor), watch whatever show you want to watch, play whatever game you want to play, etc. Perhaps it's from being a middle-child in a family of five kids. It's not that I lack assertiveness or strong opinions or such...just that I'm able to enjoy or deal with whatever comes my way. I could win the lotto and I could learn that I'm dying of cancer both with a quiet smile.
5. My degree and profession choices are almost whimsical. I'm interested in pretty much everything, so being asked to choose one field to focus on is like being told I can only watch one genre of movies. At different times in my life, I've considered pursuing: game design, anthropology, archaeology, zoology, astrophysics, marine biology, meteorology, novel writing, poetry writing, screenwriting, editorialist, rockstardom, songwriting, symphonic composition, paleontology, geology, photography, sketching, computer graphics, AI programming, robotics, woodworking...and the list goes on. I have an insatiable curiosity, and I prefer to view things as a whole, rather than by separate categories.
Anyway, the business world isn't very kind to generalists like me. So, for now, my focus is writing, songwriting and game design. (I thought up a fun design idea the other day, by the way, so maybe I'll have enough on it to post soon)
P.S. (6) I'm long-winded. But I guess you've noticed that. =P
1. The left side of my body is colder than my right. I have mild scoleosis between my shoulderblades. My spine bends and twists, and the particular vertebrae affected influence blood circulation, among other things. So my naturally cold blood (thanks Mom) is even colder on my left side, resulting in the odd situation of my left hand being cold as ice while my right hand is just fine sometimes.
Over the years, I've come to think of this as somewhat representative of my whole person, in that I'm really a mix of many extremes. For just a couple examples, I enjoy Tori Amos as much as Pantera, reading Catholic apologetics as much as watching Bama football and violent, evil horror flicks. I can listen to a symphony and play the melody back to you after a little fiddling on my guitar, but I couldn't tell you what I was doing 5 minutes ago. Sometimes, I'm kind of like everyone in one, I think.
2. I love puns. That makes me evil, I know, but I can't help it. I'm not saying I make puns a lot...I'm just saying I can appreciate them. Blame it on my dad, who got me into watching Marx Brothers movies when I was young:
secretary: "Do you want that sentence in brackets?"
Groucho: "It will never make it there in brackets. Send it in a box."
3. I prefer just being around interesting people and talking (not chatting...not small-talk....i mean talking) to anything else. There's no game, no movie, or sport, or anything I wouldn't stop immediately to simply enjoy another person's company. I can get along with just about anybody. That doesn't mean I'm social. To the contrary, I'm usually alone outside of school or work and I always feel "outside" wherever I am (even my own family, to a degree). But I still love people (even when I hate them).
4. I'm strong-willed and often bull-headed, but I'm still probably the most easy-going person you'd ever meet. Even as I take things very seriously, I'm very relaxed about it. I'll joke as I argue with people. I'll eat pretty much anything put in front of me (even after it's been dropped on the floor), watch whatever show you want to watch, play whatever game you want to play, etc. Perhaps it's from being a middle-child in a family of five kids. It's not that I lack assertiveness or strong opinions or such...just that I'm able to enjoy or deal with whatever comes my way. I could win the lotto and I could learn that I'm dying of cancer both with a quiet smile.
5. My degree and profession choices are almost whimsical. I'm interested in pretty much everything, so being asked to choose one field to focus on is like being told I can only watch one genre of movies. At different times in my life, I've considered pursuing: game design, anthropology, archaeology, zoology, astrophysics, marine biology, meteorology, novel writing, poetry writing, screenwriting, editorialist, rockstardom, songwriting, symphonic composition, paleontology, geology, photography, sketching, computer graphics, AI programming, robotics, woodworking...and the list goes on. I have an insatiable curiosity, and I prefer to view things as a whole, rather than by separate categories.
Anyway, the business world isn't very kind to generalists like me. So, for now, my focus is writing, songwriting and game design. (I thought up a fun design idea the other day, by the way, so maybe I'll have enough on it to post soon)
P.S. (6) I'm long-winded. But I guess you've noticed that. =P
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
natural models for limited resources
One practice of game developers that sometimes annoys players is repetitive use of creature models. Art assets cost time and money. To stretch their value, developers sometimes apply a new color scheme and new stats to an old model, and voila! a new creature! It's not just a goblin now. No, it's a water goblin!
Well, with a little guidance from God's own handiwork, this method can be made more acceptable to players and perhaps augment gameplay at the same time.
Nature is full of encoded color schemes. Provided a game doesn't provide labels over the heads of its creatures like EQ, variations in color schemes can be used to reward player knowledge and create more depthful gameworlds.
One of the more famous models of real mimicry is the kingsnake/milksnake, which has a striped pattern very similar to that of the coral snake, only with the colors arranged in different order. ("Red on yellow kills a fellow. Red on black, ok Jack", if I remember right). The kingsnake's bite is harmless, but the coral snake is venemous. Thus, two possible mix-ups are if a person avoids the harmless snake for mistaking its color for the venemous snake, or a person might mistake the venemous snake for the harmless one and get into a peck of trouble.
Applying this situation to a game, players could be encouraged to develop an awareness of the gameworld's natural trickery (or paying for a companion with such knowledge) and opportunities are created for interesting encounters. Applied merely to unintelligent creatures, the player might get unwarranted scares or make deadly mistakes, like with the snake example above. Applied to intelligent beings, like a humanoid race, differences in appearance could inform players of community differences (it's the economy-focused Albek tribe, not the war-mongering Magori) which affect gameplay.
These differences could be more than just "threatening/non-threatening". They could inform the player of the best approach to different ends (Tribe A is susceptible to intimidation, Tribe B to bribery, Tribe C to foreign jewelry or weapons, etc). The coloration of some insects and amphibians informs birds that they taste disgusting or cause vomiting/sickness in some other way. Likewise, different colored species of one creature model in a game might inform the player that its hide produces poor tailoring results, that it cannot be eaten, or that this particular species can climb trees.
There may be any number of situational clues. An animal's rank among its pack/herd/whatever may be signified by its color pattern. Maybe taking out the leader first causes the others to flee or lose leadership buffs. Some species may be loners, others typically found in small groups, while others typically found in large groups. If a game allowed members of a creature group to dynamically stray short distances from one another, then coloration could add to the player's strategic repertoire by giving the knowledgeable players a means of determining how many allies a target creature is likely to have nearby. Coloration and size may denote the creature's sex, signifying dynamics such as aggressiveness... never mess with a mother guarding her young. =) With humanoids, apparel may signify profession...and thereby threat level, persuasion avenues, etc.
And then there's the obvious use of coloration: camouflage. I have yet to experience an encounter in any game in which camouflage made a creature difficult to detect or pinpoint while moving. Camouflage has many purposes in the real world, one of which is to make it difficult for viewers to focus on and determine the true shape of an animal. Translucent enemies in a few FPS games (ex: Halo) have demonstrated the fun than can be derived from enemies difficult to track.
There are countless opportunities available through stuff already modeled in the real world like this. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Another branch of nature modeling is stuff like a rattlesnake's rattles and the growling of dogs...tension-building warning systems.
Writers are commonly advised to write about what they know, a philosophy which has proven extremely effective for generations. The same advice applies to game developers. The natural world is limitless in models and lessons for environment and character design.
Well, with a little guidance from God's own handiwork, this method can be made more acceptable to players and perhaps augment gameplay at the same time.
Nature is full of encoded color schemes. Provided a game doesn't provide labels over the heads of its creatures like EQ, variations in color schemes can be used to reward player knowledge and create more depthful gameworlds.
One of the more famous models of real mimicry is the kingsnake/milksnake, which has a striped pattern very similar to that of the coral snake, only with the colors arranged in different order. ("Red on yellow kills a fellow. Red on black, ok Jack", if I remember right). The kingsnake's bite is harmless, but the coral snake is venemous. Thus, two possible mix-ups are if a person avoids the harmless snake for mistaking its color for the venemous snake, or a person might mistake the venemous snake for the harmless one and get into a peck of trouble.
Applying this situation to a game, players could be encouraged to develop an awareness of the gameworld's natural trickery (or paying for a companion with such knowledge) and opportunities are created for interesting encounters. Applied merely to unintelligent creatures, the player might get unwarranted scares or make deadly mistakes, like with the snake example above. Applied to intelligent beings, like a humanoid race, differences in appearance could inform players of community differences (it's the economy-focused Albek tribe, not the war-mongering Magori) which affect gameplay.
These differences could be more than just "threatening/non-threatening". They could inform the player of the best approach to different ends (Tribe A is susceptible to intimidation, Tribe B to bribery, Tribe C to foreign jewelry or weapons, etc). The coloration of some insects and amphibians informs birds that they taste disgusting or cause vomiting/sickness in some other way. Likewise, different colored species of one creature model in a game might inform the player that its hide produces poor tailoring results, that it cannot be eaten, or that this particular species can climb trees.
There may be any number of situational clues. An animal's rank among its pack/herd/whatever may be signified by its color pattern. Maybe taking out the leader first causes the others to flee or lose leadership buffs. Some species may be loners, others typically found in small groups, while others typically found in large groups. If a game allowed members of a creature group to dynamically stray short distances from one another, then coloration could add to the player's strategic repertoire by giving the knowledgeable players a means of determining how many allies a target creature is likely to have nearby. Coloration and size may denote the creature's sex, signifying dynamics such as aggressiveness... never mess with a mother guarding her young. =) With humanoids, apparel may signify profession...and thereby threat level, persuasion avenues, etc.
And then there's the obvious use of coloration: camouflage. I have yet to experience an encounter in any game in which camouflage made a creature difficult to detect or pinpoint while moving. Camouflage has many purposes in the real world, one of which is to make it difficult for viewers to focus on and determine the true shape of an animal. Translucent enemies in a few FPS games (ex: Halo) have demonstrated the fun than can be derived from enemies difficult to track.
There are countless opportunities available through stuff already modeled in the real world like this. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Another branch of nature modeling is stuff like a rattlesnake's rattles and the growling of dogs...tension-building warning systems.
Writers are commonly advised to write about what they know, a philosophy which has proven extremely effective for generations. The same advice applies to game developers. The natural world is limitless in models and lessons for environment and character design.
withering single-player market?
This might be a gross misconception, but an impression has been growing on me these past few months that the industry is becoming somewhat antagonistic to single-player gameplay, particularly in regard to console games. I say that without denying a number of recent, interesting solo-focused games... Oblivion, Mass Effect, Two Worlds, Fable 2, Alan Wake, etc.
But I've noticed that with Oblivion, Gothic 3 and other recent solo-oriented games, both professional and non-professional reviews have included a lack of multiplayer elements as a mark against the individual games. No longer are such games accepted for the sort of games they are and reviewed as such. They are instead held against a standard that suggests all games should have some cooperative or, even better, competitive elements.
And it seems that there is increasing pressure from publishers for the inclusion of multiplayer gameplay wherever remotely possible, and perhaps even some places where it would best be left out. All of the console publishers have emphasized their online capabilities so fervently, and now Microsoft seems to be doing the same with Windows Vista, that a failure of any game to employ those capabilities is perceived as negligent.
In hindsight, this trend appears to have begun with the tremendous success of Goldeneye 64's competitive multiplayer mode. Today, my latest Game Informer magazine's main article concerns professional multiplayer competitions.
I certainly don't perceive direct and indirect multiplayer gameplay as problematic in itself. I'm very excited about the proposed online elements of upcoming solo-oriented games like Spore and Two Worlds. But I do wonder if, in our continuing fascination with the still-novel and still-explorative internet, and with our explorative forays into the many possible manifestations of multiplayer gameplay, a hostility is amassing against solo game experiences that is discouraging the production and player-acceptance of solo-focused games.
Keep in mind, solo-oriented does not mean non-social, let alone asocial. As Mark Terrano astutely pointed out at the AGC this September, single-player games can have considerable appeal for spectators and the sharing of stories about individual experiences.
So what do you think? Is there a mounting tension directed against solo game experiences, on either the player side or the production side?
But I've noticed that with Oblivion, Gothic 3 and other recent solo-oriented games, both professional and non-professional reviews have included a lack of multiplayer elements as a mark against the individual games. No longer are such games accepted for the sort of games they are and reviewed as such. They are instead held against a standard that suggests all games should have some cooperative or, even better, competitive elements.
And it seems that there is increasing pressure from publishers for the inclusion of multiplayer gameplay wherever remotely possible, and perhaps even some places where it would best be left out. All of the console publishers have emphasized their online capabilities so fervently, and now Microsoft seems to be doing the same with Windows Vista, that a failure of any game to employ those capabilities is perceived as negligent.
In hindsight, this trend appears to have begun with the tremendous success of Goldeneye 64's competitive multiplayer mode. Today, my latest Game Informer magazine's main article concerns professional multiplayer competitions.
I certainly don't perceive direct and indirect multiplayer gameplay as problematic in itself. I'm very excited about the proposed online elements of upcoming solo-oriented games like Spore and Two Worlds. But I do wonder if, in our continuing fascination with the still-novel and still-explorative internet, and with our explorative forays into the many possible manifestations of multiplayer gameplay, a hostility is amassing against solo game experiences that is discouraging the production and player-acceptance of solo-focused games.
Keep in mind, solo-oriented does not mean non-social, let alone asocial. As Mark Terrano astutely pointed out at the AGC this September, single-player games can have considerable appeal for spectators and the sharing of stories about individual experiences.
So what do you think? Is there a mounting tension directed against solo game experiences, on either the player side or the production side?
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Predictability (Lessons from Monopoly)
How important is predictability to you?
My Bartle-type is heavily on the Explorer side, followed by Killer and Roleplayer, with very little Achievement thrown in. So, not surprisingly, my favorite games have been those with much freedom of movement, much freedom of choice, and a lot of surprises (both harmful and beneficial to my character). Diablo 2, Star Wars: Battlefront, Mario Kart (SNES)...these are some of my favorite games of my 20+ years as a gamer. So I'm very interested in an RPG that offers more control over the character's responses to experiences than control over the experiences themselves.
I think there are a lot of gamers like me (though most probably aren't as self-analytical as I am, and so they might not be able to define themselves as such a gamer). Those are some of the most popular games in the history of the industry.
Think back to Monopoly. The first time playing, perhaps you knew that some of the cards were good for you and some were bad, but you probably didn't expect the particulars, like "There was a mistake in your tax return. Pay the government $500". Ouch! That 500 bucks may have been the difference between being able to afford Park Place and having to mortgage Boardwalk. And who knows how the dice will roll? These unpredictable game elements aren't minor...they're the difference between biting the dust and puting your fellow players to shame.
CONCRETE
So how could a similar unpredictability be applied to RPGs?
We could start by eliminating experience points as a guarantee for killing, as I suggested in Green's latest blog. Experience-rewarded kills are a major source of predictability in most RPGs. Over the past 20 years or so, a gaming culture has developed that is very mechanical and grind-oriented. Merely providing alternative ways to gain xp isn't going to dissuade players from grinding, and something else will become the grind if you just shift the optimal xp expediency toward some other source.
I'd like to see an RPG in which player progression is largely dependent on chance, as it is in Monopoly. In Monopoly, the dice decide what you encounter and the player decides how to respond and plan ahead. You may prefer Boardwalk and Park Place to every other property set, but you never happen to land on them to buy or you never happen to have the money when you do land there.
Now imagine an RPG in which skills/spells and equipment usually aren't acquired by going to a foreknown location and paying your dues. Instead, you wander wherever interests you and happen into encounters (people, places, things) that provide you with an opportunity to acquire something. Like in Monopoly, you decide whether to use your limited resources (some are universal currency, others are situational...like having what the NPC wants) to acquire the thing offered, or whether to hold onto that currency for the possibility of other objects.
In Monopoly, sometimes you passed up an offer you wish you hadn't, yet still had fun...and that would be possible here. What makes it possible is that your property still has regular "live" value, that it still has trade value, and that it has situational advantages. In Monopoly, the situational advantage is relatively unpredictable...your opponent just happens to keep landing on your property and having to pay you. Likewise, in an RPG, your weapon might be just so-so most of the time, but it proves to be the bane of a particular genre of creatures. For one example, think of Bilbo's sword Sting and how he only realized its magic when in the appropriate circumstances.
This system could be used to reward player knowledge, "lore" skills and encounters with wisemen/scholars by hiding an item's identity until researched, if not used. If applied to objects such as spells, there's a lot of unique fun possible. Imagine finding a scroll that seems to be some sort of transfiguration spell, but you're not sure what specifically it does. Without acquiring clarification, you have the option of taking a gamble by using it blindly, or on limited information. So perhaps you use this scroll, which bears a vague sketch of some four-legged creature, and your character is temporarily transformed into a small dog with little defense...or perhaps it changes you into a terrifying beast half the size of a cottage. Either way, you're surprised and a very engaging experience may follow (you have to run like hell or you wade through your enemies like water). Or you may cast it on yourself and nothing happens...perhaps it's a golem spell, using the metal of something in your inventory to create an automaton.
Going back to the skill/object acquirement by wandering... Such a system could be mixed with a clue system. Some measure of control could be sometimes offered to the player by providing them with rumors and other hints of what general direction an interesting object may be found at. Any number of degrees are possible with predictability.
Anyway, I could go on forever (and probably will, in my game sketches), but the point is that I wish RPGs offered less predictable experiences. I wish they did more to invoke my sense of wonder and inspire memories. "The time I accidentally changed myself into a small dog" is more memorable and fun than a particularly rough fight at the such-and-such camp (one of the 50 times I fought there).
My Bartle-type is heavily on the Explorer side, followed by Killer and Roleplayer, with very little Achievement thrown in. So, not surprisingly, my favorite games have been those with much freedom of movement, much freedom of choice, and a lot of surprises (both harmful and beneficial to my character). Diablo 2, Star Wars: Battlefront, Mario Kart (SNES)...these are some of my favorite games of my 20+ years as a gamer. So I'm very interested in an RPG that offers more control over the character's responses to experiences than control over the experiences themselves.
I think there are a lot of gamers like me (though most probably aren't as self-analytical as I am, and so they might not be able to define themselves as such a gamer). Those are some of the most popular games in the history of the industry.
Think back to Monopoly. The first time playing, perhaps you knew that some of the cards were good for you and some were bad, but you probably didn't expect the particulars, like "There was a mistake in your tax return. Pay the government $500". Ouch! That 500 bucks may have been the difference between being able to afford Park Place and having to mortgage Boardwalk. And who knows how the dice will roll? These unpredictable game elements aren't minor...they're the difference between biting the dust and puting your fellow players to shame.
CONCRETE
So how could a similar unpredictability be applied to RPGs?
We could start by eliminating experience points as a guarantee for killing, as I suggested in Green's latest blog. Experience-rewarded kills are a major source of predictability in most RPGs. Over the past 20 years or so, a gaming culture has developed that is very mechanical and grind-oriented. Merely providing alternative ways to gain xp isn't going to dissuade players from grinding, and something else will become the grind if you just shift the optimal xp expediency toward some other source.
I'd like to see an RPG in which player progression is largely dependent on chance, as it is in Monopoly. In Monopoly, the dice decide what you encounter and the player decides how to respond and plan ahead. You may prefer Boardwalk and Park Place to every other property set, but you never happen to land on them to buy or you never happen to have the money when you do land there.
Now imagine an RPG in which skills/spells and equipment usually aren't acquired by going to a foreknown location and paying your dues. Instead, you wander wherever interests you and happen into encounters (people, places, things) that provide you with an opportunity to acquire something. Like in Monopoly, you decide whether to use your limited resources (some are universal currency, others are situational...like having what the NPC wants) to acquire the thing offered, or whether to hold onto that currency for the possibility of other objects.
In Monopoly, sometimes you passed up an offer you wish you hadn't, yet still had fun...and that would be possible here. What makes it possible is that your property still has regular "live" value, that it still has trade value, and that it has situational advantages. In Monopoly, the situational advantage is relatively unpredictable...your opponent just happens to keep landing on your property and having to pay you. Likewise, in an RPG, your weapon might be just so-so most of the time, but it proves to be the bane of a particular genre of creatures. For one example, think of Bilbo's sword Sting and how he only realized its magic when in the appropriate circumstances.
This system could be used to reward player knowledge, "lore" skills and encounters with wisemen/scholars by hiding an item's identity until researched, if not used. If applied to objects such as spells, there's a lot of unique fun possible. Imagine finding a scroll that seems to be some sort of transfiguration spell, but you're not sure what specifically it does. Without acquiring clarification, you have the option of taking a gamble by using it blindly, or on limited information. So perhaps you use this scroll, which bears a vague sketch of some four-legged creature, and your character is temporarily transformed into a small dog with little defense...or perhaps it changes you into a terrifying beast half the size of a cottage. Either way, you're surprised and a very engaging experience may follow (you have to run like hell or you wade through your enemies like water). Or you may cast it on yourself and nothing happens...perhaps it's a golem spell, using the metal of something in your inventory to create an automaton.
Going back to the skill/object acquirement by wandering... Such a system could be mixed with a clue system. Some measure of control could be sometimes offered to the player by providing them with rumors and other hints of what general direction an interesting object may be found at. Any number of degrees are possible with predictability.
Anyway, I could go on forever (and probably will, in my game sketches), but the point is that I wish RPGs offered less predictable experiences. I wish they did more to invoke my sense of wonder and inspire memories. "The time I accidentally changed myself into a small dog" is more memorable and fun than a particularly rough fight at the such-and-such camp (one of the 50 times I fought there).
Saturday, December 09, 2006
The Great Escape
It occurred to me that it could be interesting to have a 3D game based entirely on movement, as Frogger and Joust (if i remember it correctly) were in 2D environments. Any number of movement variations and skill upgrades are possible now...creeping, sprinting, jumping, climbing, swimming, flying, rebounding, shoving, diving, strafing, etc. A game based entirely on escaping, and perhaps strategic leading (leading enemies into traps) and movement puzzles, could be a lot of fun. You could even add a multiplayer element in which some players attempt to escape while the others take the role of the hunters.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Games For Change
A re-post (or will be, whenever his site's working again) of my response to Raph's great talk given at the "Games For Change Conference" and available for listening on Raph's site here: http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/12/02/games-for-change-closing-address/
My main interest in game development is designing a didactic game through interactive allegory.
Allegory is a very tricky business. A difficult balance must be struck with the force and obviousness of the communication’s impression. It’s also difficult controlling the universality vs contextuality of the message. As you pointed out, Monopoly was once recognized as a statement on economic ethics, whereas now it’s just another fun game to most players. Conversely, with what idea did the poker variant “Mexican sweat” gets its name, and do many players make a connection between the label and its gameplay? (symbolism and allegory don’t always put forth positive messages)
A primary means of making a game didactic is sanctions. I think modern Americans in general, and perhaps most individuals of Western cultures, generally view any moral instruction from non-family as arrogant and unwarranted, but we do accept relatively-overt didactic sanctioning in some games while still perceiving those games as fun. In American football, a game which is appealing largely for its celebration of controlled violence (i say as a fan), there are in-game penalties for excessive celebration, unnecessary roughness, and tackles which endanger another player’s well-being. In every sport I played on a team growing up (and I played them all), the players of the opposing teams were required to shake hands afterwards and forcibly dissuaded from taunting other players. Yet we still had fun.
We call them “games", which seems to apply the ultimately goal should be “fun", but the word “appealing” is better. “Deep” stories and “deep” works of art are not fun, or not only fun...or even “entertaining” in the most common usage of the word. They are appealing; they attract us to them. The game developer doesn’t need to make the player smile, or tense with joy or anticipation; but instead just needs to make the player want to continue the game, and maybe even come back to it when it’s over (if it ends).
Work and play aren’t exactly exclusive of one another. I’m a Catholic. Did you know that a major consideration in the Church’s recognition of someone as a saint is that the person was joyful? A saint is illuminated from within during acts of service. Mother Theresa was famous among world newspapers for suffering to care for the suffering, but she was famous among those who met her directly as a lady who was always smiling and often joking while she tended to the sick and the hungry. Joy and work...joy and suffering even...are not mutually exclusive.
“Can you? Should you?” show the horrors of reality in complete honesty? The cultural majorities of the West (of all ends of the political spectrum) are against the idea. Even in media aimed at adults, the general consensus seems to be that utter truth is too much. I disagree. I’m of Flannery O’Connor’s bent in thinking “for the blind, you draw large and startling images, and for the hard of hearing, you shout". And besides that, truth is good, even when it’s most painful...people just need a guiding hand there for support. But even if I were at liberty to design a completely honest game, what are the odds I could get it published? I’ll tell you this though...regardless of said hesitation, many people respond positively to the naked truth when it’s offered to them at last.
Human beings long for truth. It’s why so many Normandy veterans went to relive the horrors of war in the movie theater with “Saving Private Ryan", despite remembering only too well that those memories would be more comfortably forgotten.
So... How best may we reveal truth and encourage action through video games? To that, I’ll just offer two brief thoughts:
Socrates offered wisdom by asking for it. Christ spoke in parables, because statements are take-it-or-leave-it (more passively accepted or rejected) and statements don’t grow with experience the same way. The strength of games is real-time feedback to player choices. You can let the players make their own choices, but sanction them accordingly; and remember that sanctions can be broad in scope.
For example: In an RPG, a young beggar girl asks for something to eat. The player can be generous with food, generous with money, generous with service (guiding the girl to aid) or ignore her entirely. If the player is generous, maybe the girl just smiles and thanks the player; maybe she joyfully greets and thanks the player everytime the player is in town; maybe she is re-encountered in better living circumstances (she's not only healthily fed, but is attending school too). But what if the player ignored her, and later encountered the young girl’s dead body emaciated (from hunger) at the edge of an alley? What if the town left the body there for days or even weeks, rotting and picked at by vermin, because nobody cares about beggars? Graphic and horrific, certainly. Fun? No, but appealing in the same way that “Schindler’s List” appealed to millions and received an Oscar award? It’s an appeal to the human longing for truth, and for justice (people need inspiration).
And lastly.. What does the game developer sacrifice? Great service (in the moral, not the economic, sense) is the reward of great sacrifice. What can we offer of ourselves? Can we be open, revealing our deepest frailties, so that others may not feel alone in inner darkness? Can we be strong, accepting years of criticism and headaches (political, financial, personal) for stubborn committment to truth, instead of security? I don’t mean to poeticize the concept, but I really don’t believe game developers can make great changes for good without sacrifices of some sort.
My main interest in game development is designing a didactic game through interactive allegory.
Allegory is a very tricky business. A difficult balance must be struck with the force and obviousness of the communication’s impression. It’s also difficult controlling the universality vs contextuality of the message. As you pointed out, Monopoly was once recognized as a statement on economic ethics, whereas now it’s just another fun game to most players. Conversely, with what idea did the poker variant “Mexican sweat” gets its name, and do many players make a connection between the label and its gameplay? (symbolism and allegory don’t always put forth positive messages)
A primary means of making a game didactic is sanctions. I think modern Americans in general, and perhaps most individuals of Western cultures, generally view any moral instruction from non-family as arrogant and unwarranted, but we do accept relatively-overt didactic sanctioning in some games while still perceiving those games as fun. In American football, a game which is appealing largely for its celebration of controlled violence (i say as a fan), there are in-game penalties for excessive celebration, unnecessary roughness, and tackles which endanger another player’s well-being. In every sport I played on a team growing up (and I played them all), the players of the opposing teams were required to shake hands afterwards and forcibly dissuaded from taunting other players. Yet we still had fun.
We call them “games", which seems to apply the ultimately goal should be “fun", but the word “appealing” is better. “Deep” stories and “deep” works of art are not fun, or not only fun...or even “entertaining” in the most common usage of the word. They are appealing; they attract us to them. The game developer doesn’t need to make the player smile, or tense with joy or anticipation; but instead just needs to make the player want to continue the game, and maybe even come back to it when it’s over (if it ends).
Work and play aren’t exactly exclusive of one another. I’m a Catholic. Did you know that a major consideration in the Church’s recognition of someone as a saint is that the person was joyful? A saint is illuminated from within during acts of service. Mother Theresa was famous among world newspapers for suffering to care for the suffering, but she was famous among those who met her directly as a lady who was always smiling and often joking while she tended to the sick and the hungry. Joy and work...joy and suffering even...are not mutually exclusive.
“Can you? Should you?” show the horrors of reality in complete honesty? The cultural majorities of the West (of all ends of the political spectrum) are against the idea. Even in media aimed at adults, the general consensus seems to be that utter truth is too much. I disagree. I’m of Flannery O’Connor’s bent in thinking “for the blind, you draw large and startling images, and for the hard of hearing, you shout". And besides that, truth is good, even when it’s most painful...people just need a guiding hand there for support. But even if I were at liberty to design a completely honest game, what are the odds I could get it published? I’ll tell you this though...regardless of said hesitation, many people respond positively to the naked truth when it’s offered to them at last.
Human beings long for truth. It’s why so many Normandy veterans went to relive the horrors of war in the movie theater with “Saving Private Ryan", despite remembering only too well that those memories would be more comfortably forgotten.
So... How best may we reveal truth and encourage action through video games? To that, I’ll just offer two brief thoughts:
Socrates offered wisdom by asking for it. Christ spoke in parables, because statements are take-it-or-leave-it (more passively accepted or rejected) and statements don’t grow with experience the same way. The strength of games is real-time feedback to player choices. You can let the players make their own choices, but sanction them accordingly; and remember that sanctions can be broad in scope.
For example: In an RPG, a young beggar girl asks for something to eat. The player can be generous with food, generous with money, generous with service (guiding the girl to aid) or ignore her entirely. If the player is generous, maybe the girl just smiles and thanks the player; maybe she joyfully greets and thanks the player everytime the player is in town; maybe she is re-encountered in better living circumstances (she's not only healthily fed, but is attending school too). But what if the player ignored her, and later encountered the young girl’s dead body emaciated (from hunger) at the edge of an alley? What if the town left the body there for days or even weeks, rotting and picked at by vermin, because nobody cares about beggars? Graphic and horrific, certainly. Fun? No, but appealing in the same way that “Schindler’s List” appealed to millions and received an Oscar award? It’s an appeal to the human longing for truth, and for justice (people need inspiration).
And lastly.. What does the game developer sacrifice? Great service (in the moral, not the economic, sense) is the reward of great sacrifice. What can we offer of ourselves? Can we be open, revealing our deepest frailties, so that others may not feel alone in inner darkness? Can we be strong, accepting years of criticism and headaches (political, financial, personal) for stubborn committment to truth, instead of security? I don’t mean to poeticize the concept, but I really don’t believe game developers can make great changes for good without sacrifices of some sort.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Video / Non-Video Games
Every once in a while, some nut suggests that we need to start calling them something other than "video games". At first, proposals for labels like "interactive [something]" struck me as just people taking themselves too seriously, disliking being pegged as "game" developers instead of something that sounds more artistic, serious, and publicly respectable.
But I'm starting to warm to the idea since a realization I had today. I admit to being slow and completely out of touch with the world sometimes, so I'm sure this realization hit others years ago.
It's very common in disputes about the quality or superiority of a "video game" for one side to point out that the graphics are not optimal while the other side points out that a game can be fun despite sub-optimal graphics. What's happening here is a problem of categorization. In a "video game", seemingly by definition, the "video" is a pivotal element. If a game places little emphasis on graphics, it's haunted by this label which demands a graphical standard. A better terminology could greatly benefit marketing and project proposals alike.
I was surprised when I first heard the term "graphic novels". It has become a common phrase, at least vaguely familiar even to those with absolutely no interest in the market. I don't know the history, but my guess is that either: 1) someone with a measure of public respect didn't want to risk their reputation by admitting to enjoying a well-written, even depthful, "comic book", or 2) a marketer of comic books thought he could fool people into giving particular comic books a chance, and succeeded. Which one of those (if either) was the prime mover is important, because the answer suggests to the game industry whether a new terminology for "video games" can come from within or must come from without.
As for what terminology... Perhaps games can co-exist under one term in overlapping categories, similar to movie DVDs. DVDs are divided into genres like horror and drama, as games are divided into FPS and RPG, but they are also divided into Widescreen/Fullscreen, and include cross-genres (action comedy, action horror, etc). I'm not sure if there's any benefit in hard-dividing "more video" games from "less video" games.
Anyway, if this is all boringly obvious, then I apologize for wasting your time.
But I'm starting to warm to the idea since a realization I had today. I admit to being slow and completely out of touch with the world sometimes, so I'm sure this realization hit others years ago.
It's very common in disputes about the quality or superiority of a "video game" for one side to point out that the graphics are not optimal while the other side points out that a game can be fun despite sub-optimal graphics. What's happening here is a problem of categorization. In a "video game", seemingly by definition, the "video" is a pivotal element. If a game places little emphasis on graphics, it's haunted by this label which demands a graphical standard. A better terminology could greatly benefit marketing and project proposals alike.
I was surprised when I first heard the term "graphic novels". It has become a common phrase, at least vaguely familiar even to those with absolutely no interest in the market. I don't know the history, but my guess is that either: 1) someone with a measure of public respect didn't want to risk their reputation by admitting to enjoying a well-written, even depthful, "comic book", or 2) a marketer of comic books thought he could fool people into giving particular comic books a chance, and succeeded. Which one of those (if either) was the prime mover is important, because the answer suggests to the game industry whether a new terminology for "video games" can come from within or must come from without.
As for what terminology... Perhaps games can co-exist under one term in overlapping categories, similar to movie DVDs. DVDs are divided into genres like horror and drama, as games are divided into FPS and RPG, but they are also divided into Widescreen/Fullscreen, and include cross-genres (action comedy, action horror, etc). I'm not sure if there's any benefit in hard-dividing "more video" games from "less video" games.
Anyway, if this is all boringly obvious, then I apologize for wasting your time.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
PS3 vs 360 Graphics Comparison
Gametrailers.com posted a graphics comparison video for Call of Duty 3: http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?fs=1&id=2650
I watched it carefully once and paused it at points. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the 360 and PS3 graphics are that the PS3 graphics are brighter (which actually detracts from the feel, in my honest opinion).
Sony consoles are notoriously difficult to design for, so I expect the PS3 will have more of a graphical edge in its shared games a year from now, when developers have a better handle on the hardware. But for now, this seems to confirm a point I heard made a few weeks ago: when games are designed for both the 360 and PS3, few developers will do more with the PS3's additional power than simply polish the graphics a tad at the end of the production process. The extra power will rarely be used for anything other than graphics and Sony's graphical edge will only shine on its exclusive games (and there are precious few of those right now).
So either Sony had better start churning out exclusive titles or they had better hope Blu-Ray wins out over HD-DVD in the home movie market.
I watched it carefully once and paused it at points. As far as I can tell, the only difference between the 360 and PS3 graphics are that the PS3 graphics are brighter (which actually detracts from the feel, in my honest opinion).
Sony consoles are notoriously difficult to design for, so I expect the PS3 will have more of a graphical edge in its shared games a year from now, when developers have a better handle on the hardware. But for now, this seems to confirm a point I heard made a few weeks ago: when games are designed for both the 360 and PS3, few developers will do more with the PS3's additional power than simply polish the graphics a tad at the end of the production process. The extra power will rarely be used for anything other than graphics and Sony's graphical edge will only shine on its exclusive games (and there are precious few of those right now).
So either Sony had better start churning out exclusive titles or they had better hope Blu-Ray wins out over HD-DVD in the home movie market.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Cereal Games
So I open a box of Cocoa Crispies this morning and what do I find? a video game.
That's right, it's a little microphone-shaped console with an Xbox label, an on-off switch and a four-point control pad. The game is basically the old game of Simon. There are two dancer figures on the small screen, one being my avatar. The game is about watching the other dancer's movements, the lifting of a leg or arm, and imitating that with my dancer (the control pad's like the original Nintendo's turned diagonally).
The world is certainly turning. Between this and the Burger King showing up on my Xbox 360 arcade, I really can't imagine where video games will be in 10 years.
I should add that this is very smart of Microsoft. They're getting kids too young for the big console into games and familiar with the Xbox brand.
That's right, it's a little microphone-shaped console with an Xbox label, an on-off switch and a four-point control pad. The game is basically the old game of Simon. There are two dancer figures on the small screen, one being my avatar. The game is about watching the other dancer's movements, the lifting of a leg or arm, and imitating that with my dancer (the control pad's like the original Nintendo's turned diagonally).
The world is certainly turning. Between this and the Burger King showing up on my Xbox 360 arcade, I really can't imagine where video games will be in 10 years.
I should add that this is very smart of Microsoft. They're getting kids too young for the big console into games and familiar with the Xbox brand.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Delays and Ports
A couple random thoughts...
I noticed that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is now scheduled for an early January release. When I first learned about it, I was really interested, but a year's worth of release date delays has allowed that intial enthusiasm to wane to the point that I'm no longer watching it. Had they waited until they were done to publicize a release date, I probably would have been caught up in the game's novelty and purchased it impulsively.
That's a common mistake, and I really don't see the upside of starting one's advertising campaign more than a month before release. Afterall, what good are word-of-mouth results if the effect has so long to fade into distant memory?
And then there's the F.E.A.R. port. Coming out so long after the original PC release, it suffers from the same thing. But there's one additional problem. It's so long after the initial release and has been modified so little that I've never been able to shake the bitter feeling like I'm being offered someone's leftovers. I'm a PC gamer more than a 360 gamer...I have no rival feelings against the PC, but the game still feels somehow cheapened by being offered to 360 gamers after such a long delay. I don't think it's a rational feeling, but it's a factor in my buying decision nonetheless, and I'm inclined to think there are probably others who feel the same way. This might be a significant consideration when releasing something cross-platform.
I noticed that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is now scheduled for an early January release. When I first learned about it, I was really interested, but a year's worth of release date delays has allowed that intial enthusiasm to wane to the point that I'm no longer watching it. Had they waited until they were done to publicize a release date, I probably would have been caught up in the game's novelty and purchased it impulsively.
That's a common mistake, and I really don't see the upside of starting one's advertising campaign more than a month before release. Afterall, what good are word-of-mouth results if the effect has so long to fade into distant memory?
And then there's the F.E.A.R. port. Coming out so long after the original PC release, it suffers from the same thing. But there's one additional problem. It's so long after the initial release and has been modified so little that I've never been able to shake the bitter feeling like I'm being offered someone's leftovers. I'm a PC gamer more than a 360 gamer...I have no rival feelings against the PC, but the game still feels somehow cheapened by being offered to 360 gamers after such a long delay. I don't think it's a rational feeling, but it's a factor in my buying decision nonetheless, and I'm inclined to think there are probably others who feel the same way. This might be a significant consideration when releasing something cross-platform.
Sunday, November 26, 2006
Weapon Foleys
I was just watching some gameplay videos of Hellgate: London. You can find them at www.gametrailers.com. Hellgate has been one of the games I'm most looking forward to for a long time now, but there's one thing about the videos that disappoints me somewhat: the sounds. Some of the weapon sounds are good, but many are weak and uncompelling.
Truth is, I'm not sure what there is to say about this subject, because I would think most concerns would be fairly obvious, but here's a ramble anyway.
There are two parts to the sound of most weapons: launch/swing and impact.
Just focusing on the impact sounds: In gameplay trailer 3, the ammo of the first gun shown sounds like weak or distant firecrackers. The fire-jet weapon sounds like a soft aerosol. The rebound-splash weapon sounds decent in that the explosions have a "thud" quality providing a feeling of true impact, but it is still unexciting. The sword with a shock effect seems to create only a shock sound with the sword's impact being completely nullified. And so on.
When making weapon foleys, there must be a feeling of violence/force. That feeling should be related to, but not entirely dependent upon, the weapon's appearance and animation. If the sound doesn't provide excitement by itself, when you close your eyes and it's not associated with any immediate cause, don't think it will become exciting once added to a visual event, because it won't.
So, for example, here's how I would change those sounds in trailer 3: In addition to the popping gunpowder sound of the first gun, there's should a sound of those bullets exploding flesh apart (a dull, wet sound). The fire-jet should be mostly fire crackling and roaring, with only a touch of the aerosol effect. The rebound shot should have some sound when the shot rebounds, and the explosions should have a searing sound added to the gunpowder pops. The sword should be heard in addition to its shock effect.
If a weapon has any sort of elemental or magical effect, be it fire, electricity or dark energy, the sound of that energy alone is not enough...there must be a sound representing what that energy is doing to the enemy body. The sound of hitting someone with a ball of fire should sound different than turning on my gas stove. The sound of bashing someone with an electrically-charged warhammer should be different than simply turning on an old buzzing TV.
Even if you're making a new fantastic sort of weapon, the sound of impact is important. If your weapon launches a screaming spectre at your foe, make a sound to represent its dissolution into or passing through the enemy's body.
The sound of the launch/swing is also important, of course, because it is a sound more immediate to the player's avatar; it more represents the character's actions. In his movies, John Woo demonstrates the powerful impact of guns cocking and clicking. Sounds of exertion are great. If I'm bringing a warhammer crashing down on the enemy's head, it's much more immersive if, instead of merely hearing the impact, I hear my character shouting or grunting with violent exertion. The tension of a taught bowstring adds emotional tension for the player.
Anyway, hopefully Flagship will revamp a lot of their sound effects to make Hellgate a much more immersive game. As demonstrated by those scenes in war films where the sound drops out or the music takes over, sounds play a huge role in how we perceive visual events. Nuances of sound lead to nuances of emotional appeal and interpretation.
Truth is, I'm not sure what there is to say about this subject, because I would think most concerns would be fairly obvious, but here's a ramble anyway.
There are two parts to the sound of most weapons: launch/swing and impact.
Just focusing on the impact sounds: In gameplay trailer 3, the ammo of the first gun shown sounds like weak or distant firecrackers. The fire-jet weapon sounds like a soft aerosol. The rebound-splash weapon sounds decent in that the explosions have a "thud" quality providing a feeling of true impact, but it is still unexciting. The sword with a shock effect seems to create only a shock sound with the sword's impact being completely nullified. And so on.
When making weapon foleys, there must be a feeling of violence/force. That feeling should be related to, but not entirely dependent upon, the weapon's appearance and animation. If the sound doesn't provide excitement by itself, when you close your eyes and it's not associated with any immediate cause, don't think it will become exciting once added to a visual event, because it won't.
So, for example, here's how I would change those sounds in trailer 3: In addition to the popping gunpowder sound of the first gun, there's should a sound of those bullets exploding flesh apart (a dull, wet sound). The fire-jet should be mostly fire crackling and roaring, with only a touch of the aerosol effect. The rebound shot should have some sound when the shot rebounds, and the explosions should have a searing sound added to the gunpowder pops. The sword should be heard in addition to its shock effect.
If a weapon has any sort of elemental or magical effect, be it fire, electricity or dark energy, the sound of that energy alone is not enough...there must be a sound representing what that energy is doing to the enemy body. The sound of hitting someone with a ball of fire should sound different than turning on my gas stove. The sound of bashing someone with an electrically-charged warhammer should be different than simply turning on an old buzzing TV.
Even if you're making a new fantastic sort of weapon, the sound of impact is important. If your weapon launches a screaming spectre at your foe, make a sound to represent its dissolution into or passing through the enemy's body.
The sound of the launch/swing is also important, of course, because it is a sound more immediate to the player's avatar; it more represents the character's actions. In his movies, John Woo demonstrates the powerful impact of guns cocking and clicking. Sounds of exertion are great. If I'm bringing a warhammer crashing down on the enemy's head, it's much more immersive if, instead of merely hearing the impact, I hear my character shouting or grunting with violent exertion. The tension of a taught bowstring adds emotional tension for the player.
Anyway, hopefully Flagship will revamp a lot of their sound effects to make Hellgate a much more immersive game. As demonstrated by those scenes in war films where the sound drops out or the music takes over, sounds play a huge role in how we perceive visual events. Nuances of sound lead to nuances of emotional appeal and interpretation.
Sunday, November 19, 2006
a good ad for Wii
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9136575504838642038&q=genre%3Agaming&hl=en
The best part's at the end: "I'm cheap and fun!"
The best part's at the end: "I'm cheap and fun!"
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Draw-style Controls
If you played the PC game Black & White, then you're familiar with the game's control system for enacting miracles. The player holds down the left mouse key and draws a symbol, with different symbols activating different avatar powers.
I was just watching the new Conan trailer, and I'm wondering why similar systems are not often used for combat-adventure games.
For example, imagine your character is just some brute with a sword.
- Overhand Slash. Hold down the left mouse button (LMB) and quickly draw the very general figure of a half-heart, (left swing) starting at the enemy's left side, looping up and to the right, or (right swing) starting at the enemy's right side, looping up and to the left. The character will swing the sword down from his left or right shoulder.
- Side Slash. Hold down the LMB and draw a line (left swing) from right of the enemy toward the enemy's midsection, or (right swing) from the left of the enemy toward the enemy's midsection.
- Upward Slash. Hold down the LMB and draw a line from the side and below the enemy toward the enemy's midsection (right or left).
- Overhead Slash. Hold down the LMB and draw a line from above the enemy toward the enemy's midsection.
- Stab. Click the LMB on the section of enemy you wish to strike.
- Slash Block. Hold the RMB and draw a line from the character's midsection to the quadrant or side you wish to block.
- Stab Block. Hold the RMB and draw a line from beside the character toward the character's midsection.
- Punch. Click the RMB on the enemy's midsection. This will punch the enemy with the hilt or dull edge of the character's sword.
- Slam. Hold the RMB and draw a line from above the enemy toward the enemy's midsection. This will slam the pommel onto the enemy's head or body.
What I've just provided is an intuitive system by which a player can perform over 20 melee commands with only the use of a 2-button mouse.
And there are countless ways to augment this system. For example, scrolling up or down on the mousewheel could switch the player's character into magic command mode, by which all the same commands now enact magical, rather than melee, actions. And different weapons could have equally expansive but intuitive draw-command systems.
Not only does this expand and naturalize the user interface, but it provides opportunities to further immerse the character and add new, fun nuances to gameplay.
How much more fun would archery be if, rather than simply clicking a button or holding one to draw the bowstring (and only pretending you feel the tension), you performed a sweeping draw move that mimicked the real movement of an archer drawing an arrow from his quiver, nocking it and letting fly?
And what if a gamer playing a magician had to learn to keep calm during frantic battles, because the command for his fireball spell is a drawn spiral and larger spirals mean larger fireballs (at a greater cost of mana)? As an unexperienced player, he would waste precious mana because the situation was intense and he lost focus. An experienced player, like an experienced adventurer in real life, would know the value of maintaining focus. This would certainly appeal to competitive and achievement-oriented gamers, and a system that wasn't unduly harsh would appeal to more relaxed, self-paced gamers as well.
Basically, I see draw-command systems (DCS) as a wonderland of opportunity for all sorts of games, and it's a shame they're not taken advantage of more often.
I realize that accuracy of the player's draw movements (their accordance with the ideal symbol...and thereby the game's ability to recognize the player's commands) is a concern, so that's why the movements I suggested above allow for a wide range of error on the player's part. Great precision shouldn't be expected of the player.
Also, though DCS would be harder to implement on consoles, with a smaller range of possible commands and wholly different needs for accuracy, I think console games could make use of such systems as well.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Expansion Content
A reprint of my response to York's latest blog: http://tatteredpage.net/archives/44
FAIRNESS
In regards to pay-for-play, I’m not a “customer is always right” sort of guy, so I don’t think gamers are owed anything. The developer decides for themselves what they think is the finished product, and you either accept that as being worth your money or you don’t. If you don’t, maybe the developer is missing out on potential revenue like yours (i.e., it was an adverse design decision), but you weren’t cheated of anything if you were never promised differently.
REPLAYABILITY (ADD TO THE GUTS, NOT TO THE END)
The ideal add-on content is content that adds replayability to the whole game…as opposed to one more quest, area, or similar expansion which is quickly breezed through. The player isn't owed that sort of content, and it’s not necessary for expansion content to be profitable, but it’s simply a much greater value for the consumer, more cost-efficient for the developer and a much easier sale.
Diablo 2’s expansion included a new Act (hours of new areas and story to explore) and two new classes (whole new avenues of gameplay to enjoy from the very beginning of the game through). That, by far, is the most valuable expansion offering I can think of for a non-MMO (which I would say is a somewhat different ballgame). The classes are the main attraction, because they represent hours upon hours of fresh gameplay. Not only the players, but the developers also, got a lot more bang for their buck that way than if Blizzard had only added the new Act.
I’d venture to say that relatively few games disallow expansions of that nature…expansions which refresh the entire game, rather than merely tack something onto the end.
FAIRNESS
In regards to pay-for-play, I’m not a “customer is always right” sort of guy, so I don’t think gamers are owed anything. The developer decides for themselves what they think is the finished product, and you either accept that as being worth your money or you don’t. If you don’t, maybe the developer is missing out on potential revenue like yours (i.e., it was an adverse design decision), but you weren’t cheated of anything if you were never promised differently.
REPLAYABILITY (ADD TO THE GUTS, NOT TO THE END)
The ideal add-on content is content that adds replayability to the whole game…as opposed to one more quest, area, or similar expansion which is quickly breezed through. The player isn't owed that sort of content, and it’s not necessary for expansion content to be profitable, but it’s simply a much greater value for the consumer, more cost-efficient for the developer and a much easier sale.
Diablo 2’s expansion included a new Act (hours of new areas and story to explore) and two new classes (whole new avenues of gameplay to enjoy from the very beginning of the game through). That, by far, is the most valuable expansion offering I can think of for a non-MMO (which I would say is a somewhat different ballgame). The classes are the main attraction, because they represent hours upon hours of fresh gameplay. Not only the players, but the developers also, got a lot more bang for their buck that way than if Blizzard had only added the new Act.
I’d venture to say that relatively few games disallow expansions of that nature…expansions which refresh the entire game, rather than merely tack something onto the end.
Wednesday, November 01, 2006
Pacing in MMOs
Pacing is vital in any game, including MMOs.
For one thing, an adequate pace keeps the player focused on gameplay and disallows them the leisure to pick apart every flaw of your game. You're unlikely to notice that clipping plane being slightly off while your attention is on the madman running at you with a bloody axe.
Of course, an unbalanced pace can be bad too. All but the most obsessive action-gamers need some small breather between battles. Slow points also can allow players to absorb their experiences, qualify them and encode them into memory.
Pacing plays any number of roles... but to what degree can pacing be controlled in a non-linear game, like an MMO? It seems to me that there are methods of soft control, like player-travel control through enemy placement and environment design. But are there any hard/certain measures of pacing control in games like these? What could be done to improve control?
I'm asking this with the belief that gamers frequently spoil their own fun, unknowingly most of the time, and that poor pacing is a key way in which that can happen. We shouldn't just leave it up to the players entirely.
For one thing, an adequate pace keeps the player focused on gameplay and disallows them the leisure to pick apart every flaw of your game. You're unlikely to notice that clipping plane being slightly off while your attention is on the madman running at you with a bloody axe.
Of course, an unbalanced pace can be bad too. All but the most obsessive action-gamers need some small breather between battles. Slow points also can allow players to absorb their experiences, qualify them and encode them into memory.
Pacing plays any number of roles... but to what degree can pacing be controlled in a non-linear game, like an MMO? It seems to me that there are methods of soft control, like player-travel control through enemy placement and environment design. But are there any hard/certain measures of pacing control in games like these? What could be done to improve control?
I'm asking this with the belief that gamers frequently spoil their own fun, unknowingly most of the time, and that poor pacing is a key way in which that can happen. We shouldn't just leave it up to the players entirely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
