Escape without a mask

While I agree that escapism is a common appeal of RPGs, I don't think escape from reality happens to the extent that many seem to believe.


Knowledge and potential
Any role can be played only so well as it is understood. That's why actors do research. The actor tries to imagine what it would be like to be that other person, and then he acts the part as much as that character's personality happens to overlap with the actor's own personal capacity.

All personalities are far broader than can be witnessed in any single moment. Each personality includes the choices one makes and the choices one is capable of making. That's why good fiction writers know much more about their characters than the reader is shown. And that's why your college professor sees a different "you" than your mom, and her conception is different than your co-worker's, which is different than your boss's, and so on.

Different people and settings bring out different parts of your personality, and nobody will ever know you in entirety. That doesn't make you deceitful. Different individuals need and want different things from us. They have different senses of humor, so you tell different jokes. They have different problems, so you offer different kinds of advice and sympathy. One likes vulgarity; another likes pithy remarks. One person evokes your anger; another makes you laugh. No person will ever see every part of you because no person will ever witness you in every situation; and, on top of that, you're always changing and growing.

The choices involved in roleplay express real aspects of the player's personality. The actions my character performs are actions within the scope of my personality under the same set of conditions. And that last part's the kicker.


Conditions of personality
The only true escape comes when something about the setting creates parameters that are different from the real world.

In real life, many consider me a overly nice guy. I never lose my temper, never hurt someone's feelings intentionally (not even in retaliation), and I will go out of my way to help complete strangers -- all just because it's natural for me to care about every person I see face-to-face. But as a player in Neverwinter Nights, I didn't really care about any of the other characters. So I actually levelled up my character before even leaving town by brutally slaughtering every NPC who was of no use to me. Once, I even cheated an NPC out of his money, and then killed him. I was disappointed when the game wouldn't allow me to slaughter the child NPCs the same way.

The point is... Under this different set of parameters which the game presented (if not intentionally...Bioware probably wanted me to care about their NPCs), I was neutral evil. Under real parameters, I'm neutral good. Actual choices are far more important than potential in defining character. However, potentiality is a part of personality. The fact that I thought to slaughter all those NPCs while a friend who also had the game never killed an NPC needlessly demonstrates a difference between our personalities (perhaps only that it takes more for me to empathize with game characters than for my friend to). Even though those parameters are completely virtual, completely impossible in real life, they reveal a difference between what defines Aaron and what defines Jay.


Few player characters, if any, reflect nothing of the player's personality. And I'll go so far as to say that most player characters reveal quite a bit. What we're escaping from is pressures upon our personalities, not really from who we are.


Every artist is a psychologist in disguise. =)

The group and the individual

Player groupings should be separated by more than just numbers and organization. They can be designed for different types of encounters, different rewards, and different limitations. And by "different types", I don't mean different in the nominal way EQ2 has "Solo" and "Group" encounters.


SOLDIERS AND TREASURE-HUNTERS AIN'T THE SAME
Raiding in MMOs never seemed all that wonderful to me. I tried it a couple times and felt most of the time like I was being prodded through a guided tour.

In fact, that analogy works pretty well, because a raiding party in current MMOs is a group much more in the sense of a tour-group than of a militia. Sure, the individual players enjoy each other's company (ideally, anyway), but they're mostly concerned with individual goals (loot and/or xp). Guilds sometimes boast about having defeated a particularly tough enemy, and this represents a truly community-oriented goal (national honor -- i.e., patriotism); but they typically face that same enemy over and over for the sake of individual player progressions.

Goals in MMOs rarely lean more toward community benefits than individual benefits. If you dig deeply enough, of course, the line between self-serving acts and selfless acts is often hypothetical; one act serves both ways. But what concerns us here is the player's focus and intent.

True militia
I'm not arguing that traditional raiding should be abandoned entirely, but I am suggesting that the traditional reward system of "loot and xp always" is bland and primitive.

For years now, a common goal among MMO developers has been to make players feel more important to the gameworld. True militia gameplay is one means of accomplishing that. Instead of painting every player into a mercenary role, players may be allowed to join NPC causes and serve NPC factions in ways that position lore progression (story engagement) before all other goals. Star Wars: Galaxies seemed to prove the viability of this. In my SWG experience, players did take faction quests for the purpose of self-advancement, but it also was not uncommon for faction-bound players to engage faction enemies in combat for the sake of a cause or role-fulfillment. The game was certainly much more enjoyable for me because of my faction affiliation (Empire) and the call to eliminate any "Rebel scum" I might happen across or hear about.

A piece of the action
Many successful FPS games have cast the player as a soldier who will assuredly receive no rewards of loot, money, faction, or progression points. But the player doesn't mind, because he's in it for the action... and possibly (though I doubt it) for the story progression. If MMOs can't sell players on the idea that some encounters are rewarding enough through the action alone, then it seems that would make liars out of those who claim MMO combat is truly exhilirating. MMO veterans would have expectations that must be managed, of course, but those expectations may be changed.

Fame and glory
Does anyone really doubt that guilds (or other large groups of players) would still tackle ferociously tough monsters even without any promise of loot, wealth, or experience points? Bragging rights are a big deal. I remember an incredibly difficult cheat to unlock in Goldeneye N64 that required beating a level in a ridiculously short time. After players beat it, they didn't talk about how cool the unlocked cheat was; they talked about how hard it was to get and how skilled (and lucky) that made them.

Tie such communal victories in with the game's lore and dynamic events. Then, offer the group a lasting legacy. Legacies can be accomplished through a Hall of Heroes, library records, minstrel songs, and any number of other possibilities. If a legendary one-spawn creature is taken down, the developers can ask the guild for some visual figure that is representative of the group, then place a statue of that figure in a nearby village for the duration of the gameworld. In some cases, it may make sense to recognize the individuals within the group directly (like a list of names in a library record), but it's alright to reward the group as a whole instead.

Noble deeds
See the previous blog.


SOLO GAMEPLAY = GROUP GAMEPLAY WATERED-DOWN?
There seems to be an implicit assumption in MMOs that the only significant differences between solo gaming and group gaming are complimentary skills and chatting. Not so.

Solo gaming involves a freedom from many social pressures which affect how the player engages the game.

Pacing
Players in a group generally try to stay together, watching the others and adjusting their pace to a comfortable compromise. A solo player can follow impulses to rush ahead or sneak as slowly as he wants to.

One of my favorite MMO experiences was ever-so-slowly sneaking up to and down through a cave full of narglatches (like nasty-tempered lions covered in red scales and spikes). My character must have spent at least 20-30 minutes crawling on his belly, stopping completely whenever a narglatch might notice me. I was down in the thick of their lair before I was finally discovered. That's an experience I couldn't have had with a group.

Soloing means much tighter control over one's gameplay experience. Everyone probably knows what it's like being talked into some dungeon crawl, quest, or loot run that you really were not all that interested in. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes, we need someone to push us into new, enjoyable experiences. But sometimes, perhaps just as often, we look back and think, "yep, I knew this would suck."

Tactics and strategy
Some expressions of this difference are obvious, but there's a lot to be explored here. For example, solo players must often be more attentive to their surroundings and careful with positioning (relative to the enemy) than groups. They're more vulnerable to surprise attacks. Positioning is something MMOs haven't adequately incorporated into gameplay (with notable exceptions). But if they did, it is certainly something that is realized very differently in solo gameplay ("I bet he can't see me on this cliff above him") than in group gameplay ("You three circle behind him, and I'll drive him to you").


In the interest of getting this posted today, I'll leave it at that. But I hope the general idea is clear. Developers may just continue debating which loot to give solo gamers, which loot to give small groups, and which loot to give raiding parties. But it makes more sense to me that large groups, small groups, and solo experiences generally represent different goals and settings...and should often involve reward systems that are fundamentally different (not just different in quantity or quality). Mercenary armies are feasible, but armies marching off to protect an allied people (for free) or hunting a dragon for eternal glory (and nothing else)...those sort of scenarios make more sense to me when considering large group gameplay.

Nobility and reward

Originally, this was part of a blog I'm writing concerning group gameplay versus individual gameplay. But it's become so long, I'm going to make this its own article.


FOR LOOT OR NOBLE REWARD
The Three Amigos faced El Guapo to save the town, not to rob the thieves.

Current MMOs are more encouraging of mercenary alliances of convenience than of noble causes. In real life, individuals are often filled with a powerful sense of self-satisfaction when they recall memories of good deeds he or she has done, or when the deed's recipient smiles back appreciatively. If noble action can be so fulfilling in reality, then it could certainly be fulfilling in a game as well. There's a significant affectual difference between helping another person and helping an NPC, but each can be gratifying.

Sure, games regularly offer players opportunities for noble deeds, but there is always another form of reward (and usually not just one) that often seems to overshadow the player's good will. It might be only experience points, or loot, or faction that can be "cashed in" for something beside good favor. As I'm sure I've written somewhere before, I'd like to see rewards more separated: loot alone, xp alone, faction alone... and nobility alone.


ORGANIZED CHARITY
Players could join organizations for the expressed purpose of noble deeds, perhaps even of a particular scope. And the appeal isn't limited to roleplay (enter the "virtual world vs game" debate =P ). These can be fun.

Those paladin pansies...
For example, a paladin might occasionally group with fellows of his order to keep an enemy population in check. In the upcoming MMO Darkfall, a dynamic spawning system allows a creature population to "migrate" after being overhunted in one area. Such a setting would be ideal for this sort of organization.

The paladin order could not only maintain safety on one particular border, but they might also perform reconaissance and travel from one area to the next hunting zombies or demonspawn. If developers allowed these creature populations to grow to burdensome levels if left unchecked, then player paladins might even receive encouragement from non-paladins! In this case, though there may be many types of rewards involved in the struggle at any given time, it is clear how such a system may keep an impression of noble action front-and-center.

Herbs on demand
Another possibility is an alchemical organization driven by NPC groups with alchemical needs. In fact, this provides a way to show how one altruistic organization might be bound to another.

Suppose that the undead, which the paladins attempt to keep in check, can have some negative effect on NPC villages that they come into contact with. The effect might be perpetual fear, illness, or might even be a plethora of maladies. The alchemical organization would then enter the village to obtain, create, and apply remedies (with visually perceptible effects) to the NPC population.

The paladin order might often be the messenger of need, calling upon the alchemical society after raids; or vis versa. There might even be circumstances in which the two organizations must work cooperatively for success. For instance, a stricken village might be extremely hard to cure as long as undead just outside its borders exert a psychic hold over the villagers (i.e., undead leaders must be slain to release the town from corruption). Or (in the opposite direction) the paladins might call on the alchemists to purify a holy pool which is a boon to paladin powers in the area, thereby strengthening the paladins against nearby undead.


In short, it is feasible for altruism to be its own reward at times in games (within the context of enjoying the act itself...like combat). It isn't necessary for grouping with other players to always involve a possibility of personal gain. Sometimes enjoyment come from feeling helpful and identifying one's self with a larger and nobler cause.

The WoW phenomenon

For well over a year now, everyone and their mother has been trying to figure out what made World of Warcraft take off like a rocket and dominate the market by such a ridiculous margin. The latest figures I've seen say they're at upwards of 800,000 subscribers now.

Well, against my better judgement, I'll throw in my own 2 cents.


THE BLIZZARD BRAND
WoW had a marketing advantage far beyond that of any other MMO game, with the possible exception being Middle Earth Online. Blizzard has the Midas touch.

They have not one, but three game franchises, spanning decades, with millions of faithful fans. Many of those fans would scoff at the mere idea of an MMO game, but others can't help but feel excited by anything Blizzard comes up with. Each of those fans has a word-of-mouth advertising effect (the strongest advertising that exists) on at least one or two other people (gamers and non-gamers), if not half-a-dozen or more.

Why can WoW bridge the gap between Western and Eastern gamers? One word: Starcraft. From what I understand, that game has its own TV channel(s) in South Korea. That's impressive by itself, but even moreso considering that it was a game designed in the West.

In some Asian countries, gaming is more mainstream than it is here. Game developers are actually recognized over there like celebrities. If I remember right, both Bill Roper and Raph Koster have said they've been stopped on the street in South Korea because gamers recognized their faces. That difference has important implications in MMOG marketing. If gaming is more mainstream, it's almost certainly more common for friends and family of the pre-gaming generations to be persuaded to try the game.


TIMING
No matter how good a game's marketing, no matter how good the game, there's always a little luck involved. There are a couple of ways in which I think WoW sneaked out the door at just the right time.

For one, it emerged at a time when first generation MMO gamers were floundering. It seems almost universal that a gamer's first MMO is the sweetest MMO experience. Myself, I began with Everquest. That lasted around 9 months, and it seems to have become increasingly difficult with each new MMO I try (I've played or tested almost a dozen) to become absorbed in the game. We are gradually disillusioned, increasingly aware of design issues and the staleness of this genre. WoW was released around the time that many gamers like this (those who began with Everquest, Ultima Online, or Star Wars: Galaxies) felt homeless and desperately desired an MMO that they could invest more than a mere month or two in. While WoW has kept with the same stale formula in many ways, it's refreshing in others.

Perhaps just as importantly, WoW emerged as video games were becoming more mainstream in the West and major media outlets were looking for gaming news to share with the non-gaming public. These days, many major news networks cover the game industry in their technology sections, or even give gaming its own section. That's an invaluable avenue of advertising that previous MMOs did not have nearly as much access to. It used to be that only major articles written about games like Everquest sharply criticized the absorbitant amount of hours kids "wasted" on their computer. Now, the more sales WoW gathers, the more major news networks report on it...which means more WoW sales. Even people of the pre-gaming generations are beginning to wonder, "Nearly a million subscribers?! Maybe there's something to this 'virtual world' nonsense."


A SOLID GAME
Of course, none of this is too suggest that the game's design doesn't deserve much, if not most, of the credit.

WoW may be the only MMO I've ever played that never made my computer's fans squeal, as if to scream "Please! It's too much!" The graphics are easy on computers, yet designed with a consistent and imaginative style. The art uses a broad palette of colors...meaning that it engages the eye more than traditional realism. The cartoonish style prevents gritty and frightening scenes from feeling too gritty or frightening for those who want a more relaxed, musing experience (i.e., a lot of people who rarely, if ever, play video games).

The pace of gameplay is quicker and less disjointed than in most MMOs. I remember thinking how ingenious it was that my orc warrior was encouraged to almost immediately move from one enemy to the next by the rage system. Players aren't nearly so bound to grouping as in most MMos. The feasibility of solo gameplay means the player is rarely stuck standing and waiting on groups to form and true gameplay to begin again. It's smart to offer the player downtime periodically. But if the player doesn't want downtime at the moment, then don't force it on him.

WoW had improved customization options in its skill system. In most MMOs, levelling up mean the player is given particular skills. WoW took the Diablo route of allowing players to improve old skills, rather than pick new skills, if they so choose. And one player of a class might use different skills than another, such as one warlock preferring a ranged minion while another warlock prefers a melee minion.

It's probably been a year since I played the game, but I'm sure there are plenty of other aspects of the game that are worthy of praise.


SO BASICALLY...

Yes, it's a good game. But no, it is not the epitome of all an MMO game should be. It annoys me to no end when I constantly see people pointing to WoW's phenomenal sales and concluding that any aspect of the game must be good. Circumstances surrounding WoW gave it a great running start, and further circumstances have facilitated its progress like with few other games of any genre.

But more importantly, the success of a whole product does not translate into success of any feature within that product. The game has sold well as a whole, not piece by piece. And some of its features might be perfect in combination with other WoW features, but terrible when placed in other combinations.

Financial investors understand this concept. At home, they have awesome HD-TVs with annoying control schemes, slick luxury cars with uncomfortable seats and holsters too small or large for their coffee mugs, and microwaves that can do anything but take a rocket-scientist to figure out. If you know how to explain it to them, you can get your investment money without having to clone WoW in every detail.

Routine and an illusion of fate

INTRO
If any two philosophers would have been excellent game designers, they would be Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas.

Aristotle called something virtuous when it performed the purpose of its design well. A knife, for example, is virtuous if it cuts well. You could choose to use a knife as a hammer, but it probably wouldn't perform that function well. There are limitations inherent in the design, though few designs are absolutely limited. A knife may sometimes act as a pretty good flat-head screwdriver, for example.

St. Thomas Aquinas believed that there are three things any person must know in order to be happy and fulfilled: (1) he must know the world for what it is; (2) he must know his own place, his role, in the world's design; and (3) he must know how to fulfill that role through momentary actions. If a person does not know how to translate his knowledge of the role into definite actions, his ability to experience the joy of fulfillment is stunted.

On the other hand, nobody likes to feel like just a cog in the machine. In every MMO game I play (and I've played or tested almost a dozen now), I inevitably hear some players criticizing others for not knowing how to play a particular group role. If these criticisms were general, like asserting that a defender should be apt at protecting his allies, then I would agree. But they are more often suggestions that a very particular tactical blueprint should be followed without deviation; thereby ensuring, in combination with everyone else's particular blueprint, that the factory of combat produces the agreeable (if bland) result predicted.

THE GIST OF IT
For most gamers, fun is best achieved through a balance of predetermination and free will. What MMOs have shown me is that stale routines can lead to an illusion of predetermination and confinement.

Consider real warfare. A Roman swordsman knew what his initial actions must be in order to preserve the integrity of the group's strategy (a phalanx formation). In order for the formation to be effective, each soldier must move toward the enemy at an equal pace, maintaining a position in the battalion's order, until he the melee combat begins. But... once that combat begins, the soldier must respond to the spontaneous (though trained) actions of the enemy and to the progression of events surrounding his immediate opponent (like the allied soldier by his side falling to an enemy attack). Likewise, in modern warfare, the soldier has a general place in unit operations, but he must respond to spontaneous events in a fluid and often creative way (here, "creative" often means applying his training to an unfamiliar scenario).

If an encounter does not seem spontaneous in its unfolding, if the enemy does nothing that vaguely surprises the combatant, then the encounter leaves an impression of being fated, of unfolding as it was certain to unfold. Utter predictability acts as an adversary to a feeling of free will. If something always happens, then it must happen. This is a basic assumption of the empirical philosophy which popular culture has accepted from modern science.

The problem of the infamous "grind" isn't that the player must struggle through an endless series of encounters to grow and realize his or her goals. The problem is the predictability of these encounters, and the player's consequent impression that his actions were never truly his own, but rather just the fulfilling of an external plan.

Cinematic combat...Legend: Hand of God

If this game isn't one of the hottest topics in the industry a week from now, I'll be extremely disappointed: http://www.legend-game.com/index.php?sprache=2

Any developer interested in action-oriented games should be drooling over their Cinematic Combat System (CCS). Just watch the gameplay trailer: http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=3181

The first time I watched that, I started out thinking "hey, it looks like someone's finally made a Diablo-clone worthy of its heritage" (Titan Quest has its merits, but its lack of what this game has was precisely its downfall in my eyes). But when I saw the fight with the ogre (or whatever that big fella is), my jaw dropped. That single mechanic will add inestimable appeal to the gameplay. Please, God, let this feature be adopted by the entire industry in the next couple years!

One thing their CCS demonstrates well is the importance of perceived impact in combat systems. If the enemy falls back when my fist never actually made contact, the thrill of the punch is lessened. Likewise, if I punch him and there's no visual reaction whatsoever; or if every attack elicits the same reaction. I've critized Hellgate: London over this same issue. In that case, the perception of impact was missing somewhat due to lackluster sound effects (I noticed in the Flagship's most recent trailers that all of their weapon-related sound effects lean toward high frequencies, which seems odd...considering that low frequencies offer the most powerful impressions of impact).

It's a bit unfortunate that the trailer for Legend: Hand of God is being released during the thick of hype for so many other games (The Darkness, Bioshock, etc.) and the presentation of Carmack's new graphics engine (which also looks, at a glance, like it may affect the entire industry). I hope those don't swallow up all the attention this game deserves.

The future of modeling?

http://labs.live.com/photosynth/video.html

By itself, that technology's awesome. I expect I'll be able to take excellent 3-D tours of half the major tourist attractions in the world 15 years from now. In addition, this seems to be a major step toward easier modeling of real objects.

If the human eye can discern an understanding of depth in 2-D representations, like photographs and paintings, then someone should be able to create software that does the same. We already have a rough ability to do this (apply the "sharpen" filter to a photograph half a dozen times and notice how it takes on a 3-D effect), though I'm not suggesting the invention of such software should be easy. Two-dimensional representations could be made three-dimensional.

If that can be accomplished to an acceptable degree of accuracy, think of how these two technologies could be combined! If software could accurately detect depth and distance in 2-D representations, and if those representations (now 3-D) could be linked into a combined model (similar to the products of Photosynth), then an entire real-world environment could be represented in a 3-D computer model by little more than taking a lot of photographs and processing them through the software.

The model would be almost entirely realistic (i.e., past the Uncanny Valley). No more trying to simulate the endless and unpredictable variety of textures, all of the minor flaws and eccentricities that give real objects believable character. The model of a house would have chipped paint in all the right places, settled supports in all the right places, windows with smudges, bricks with holes, and so on.

Of course, I realize that this technology won't come without significant hurdles. Even after it's accomplished, game developers would then have to figure out how to assign physics to the art which they didn't build piece-by-piece. They would have to go in after-the-fact to divide the art into sections for gameplay purposes. And that's just one hurdle.

Still, Photosynth seems to be an exciting development for game developers in particular. =)

Gameplay, not narrative, defines the game

In a recent issue of Game Informer, Mathieu Ferland defends the idea that Splinter Cell: Conviction is not a break from the Splinter Cell franchise by saying "I think there was a natural progression with the narrative."

I'm a fiction writer and a lifelong RPG fan, but I just don't buy that narrative ever defines a game. If a game was designed so that the gameplay is, not just heavily dependent on the narrative, but at its very essence little more than the progression of a story, then I might agree that narrative can define a game. But I have yet to play a game in which my primary interest is the narrative.

Call of Duty: 3 might come closest, and I played it for only 15-20 minutes before giving up on it. The game (the beginning, at least) was so dependent on cinematics that it felt like I was just going through motions to reach the next cinematic...and my impression was that it was a terrible game. If I want to watch a movie or read a book, I'll go do that.

This medium is about interaction. The narrative might be extremely important, but interaction will always be the core of any game. The more one-sided the game's progression (the more pace, plot, setting, and so on are controlled by the developer and not the player), the less it is a game.

The goals that make the most sense to me as a writer for games are:

• To design and anticipate possible player decisions, and accomodate that free will through gameplay trees, ala Deus Ex.
• To design a context for player actions: a world which demonstrates interest in player choices, rewarding/punishing those choices according to its own interests and concepts of right and wrong action.
• To provide elements with which the player may build (consciously or not) his or her own story; to build a world with room for creative, and not just explorative, gameplay.

I certainly believe that there are many admirable ways in which game writers may create a variety of narrative-gameplay combinations. But, ever since I played my first MMORPG (Everquest), the avenue which most attracts me, and which seems glaringly absent from the modern game library, is a central narrative theme...only moderately predetermined...surrounded and fulfilled by the spontaneous and creative narratives of individual players.

Player input, not the narrative that input may reveal, is the game. Dev-written stories extracted by the player will always be somewhat peripheral to core gameplay.

Partnership of medicine and games

I read an article earlier which referenced the many months of research into biomechanics necessary for the developers of the new Splinter Cell game to achieve semi-realistic, complex character motions. Knowledge of biomechanics is of increasing importance as the industry's bar for animation is raised.

In about a month, one of my little sisters begins an internship with the National Institute of Health as a bioengineering assistant. They'll be using a new MRI technology to study the deteriorating joints of persons with cerebral palsy.

Perhaps much could be gained by a partnership between the medical industry and the game industry in the study of biomechanics. By combining the physiological expertise of medical researchers with the programming expertise of game software developers, it seems both sides could benefit greatly. Game developers might provide medical researchers with improved software and interfaces, while physicians might provide game developers with insights into simulating true biomechanics.

Making progression actually matter

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. =/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. =)

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.

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