I'm feeling brave today.
A long time ago, after watching this GameTrailers interview and having met, for the first time, a woman who enjoys a Real-Time Strategy game, I decided to give my take on the question of women's place in the gaming world. Will games ever appeal to as many women as men? Do women want different experiences or have different expectations?
I forgot about this article for a while, but Brian over at The Weekend Gamer brought it back to mind by highlighting a new study. Incidentally, the scientist's conclusion (that gaming in general is more natural for males) isn't supported by his evidence (which suggests only that particular types of gameplay are more suited toward males).
Anyway, here are some semi-random thoughts on the subject. Much of the information about physical differences between men and women I learned from my youngest sister, who is a biomedical engineer, medical researcher at the National Institute of Health, and now training to be a physical therapist. I'm also fairly well schooled in psychology. And I grew up in a family with two boys and three girls, which means I've been having discussions about these differences all my life. The sister in medicine also happens to be the one who played games like Halo with me for years.
CERTAIN
First, here are the things I'm sure of.
Women are destined for games, too
Every year now, there are new reports of the growing numbers of female gamers. For whatever reason, gaming has been more popular with guys for a long time. But a day is soon coming when a woman playing video games will be no more surprising than a woman going to see a movie or watching TV. Nothing about the medium itself, interactive entertainment, is exclusive or preferential.
And the cultural barriers that deter girls from trying out games in general are slowly but surely being eroded. Those cultural barriers might not disappear altogether -- male gamers might always outnumber female gamers -- but female gamers will at least become nothing to raise an eyebrow at. Groups like Frag Dolls (a group of women devoted to competitive war games) will always be exceptional, but girls will game in some form.
Some games are for us all
Many games are or will be equally popular among both sexes. In my experience, the original Mario Kart on the SNES is such a game. So are some classic arcade games and MMOs. The Sims series is popular with both sexes, as I'm sure Spore will be.
Some games favor one sex
The term "chick flicks" didn't come out of nowhere. Through the many decades of motion pictures, many films have been far more popular among women while other films have been far more popular among men. The same is seen in literature and every other artform. The same will be seen in video games.
Genre alone does not determine the audience. Though guys generally hate being dragged to sappy romance films, there are some romances that are popular with guys, too (French Kiss, There's Something About Mary, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc). Action flicks generally draw more male viewers, but some are popular with women (Speed, Rush Hour, LOTR, etc).
CONFIDENT THEORIES
Here's the stuff I'm not certain of but think is likely.
Art Themes
Men and women have different ratios of rod-to-cone light-receptor cells in their eyes. This means that women tend to be physically more capable of distinguishing separate colors than men and have better peripheral vision. Men, on the other hand, tend to have better depth perception and form tracing. This probably affects women's interests in game art the same way it affects women's visual interests in clothing and interior design.
Women tend to have a greater appreciation of vibrant colors and cumulative design (meaning how objects fit together). Men are more attentive to shape and the structural layout of environments. The RTS that my female friend said she loved is Warcraft 3. Without suggesting that she likes it for the visuals alone, that game and World of Warcraft use vibrant colors and a rounded art style. Mario Kart and other Mario games, popular among women, also employ this basic style.
Spore could be a great instrument of study in this area. I bet patterns will emerge in the sort of creatures and objects men design versus what women design. Incidentally, a woman might be the better researcher there, because women more often notice patterns (focus on cumulations, rather than specific objects, is as much a part of female brain development as eye development; male and female brains form a little differently).
Animations
A woman's gait is naturally different from a man's gait; not because of different attitudes, but because of a number of physical disparities in things like center-of-gravity, shape of the knees, and shape of the hips. If a game's visuals are real enough that the uncanny valley is a concern, then this difference between sexes should also be considered. It might be the reason that something doesn't look quite right. But the difference is slight... easy to exaggerate into a seductive parody, so artists should be careful.
Multiplayer
Women tend to be more socially attentive and cooperative than men. Both men and women are often bull-headed, but a man is more likely to insist on his own way, refuse help (instructions, driving directions, etc), and focus on individual gain. So I think women tend to favor cooperative multiplayer over independent multiplayer. That's not saying that women are not competitive... just that they like to explore and compete in a more cooperative way.
All three of my sisters played competitive sports, and it was obvious that they play in a different way than guys. Women tend to focus more on team achievement. Team performance is important to men too, of course, but individual achievement has more relative value for us. Star Wars: Galaxies and Star Wars: Battlefront are good examples of games which favor male-type cooperation. Players can act separately while contributing to a common goal. Everquest and Halo are examples of games which favor female-type cooperation. One player's character cannot survive without the other's direct participation and intervention.
Yes, mostly-male militaries around the globe are based on the latter sort of cooperation, but how many young boys playing war games pretend in a support role? Soldiers fight side-by-side because it's necessary to survive and win; not because it's their preference.
Reinforcement
When I asked one of my sister's about psychological differences between men and women on the soccer field, she mentioned that teammates shout words of encouragement much more often on women's teams. In her own words, "women respond more positively to encouragement". So it would make sense to include such encouragement in a game for female gamers.
On the flipside, I wonder if men respond more positively to the harsh criticism that's typical when coaching men's teams. The warrior instinct might mean this tends to inspire men by challenging our egos. The only video game experience I can cite here in Crackdown, in which I loved the narrator's mocking commentary and challenges.
Genres
As I said before, genre alone does not determine whether a game is attractive to both sexes or one. But some genres are ideally suited for gameplay which favors one sex over the other, just as most Nora Roberts fans are women while most Tom Clancy fans are men.
We might as well start by acknowledging that the division in films and books will translate into games. Romance favors women. We haven't seen many romance games yet, but they're on the way. Mass Effect's choice-empowering relationship play is one hint at things to come.
Women like war dramas, while men are the primary audience for war action. In addition to other features, an FPS game might be made more attractive to women through more personal dialogue between soldiers and more exploration of the protagonist's character. Women might also be interested more in rescue missions and guard missions, since their goals tend to be more about relationships.
Horror seems like a neutral genre, though men might favor the "walk into the darkness" type of horror while women favor the "something is coming" horror (feeling trapped). Men tend to like plans (structure) and predictability, while women are more willing to accept and adapt. Thus, a game like Dead Space probably favors men, while the movie Alien is more a woman's style in this way (the protagonist is unexpectedly trapped with the monster and defends herself; she doesn't seek the monster out). I'm far from sure about this theory, though my sisters generally agree. Also, women probably like their horror more contemplative and relationship-driven (like The Ring and The Grudge), while men prefer battle-driven plots (Predator, The Ghost and The Darkness).
Tone
I think women more commonly choose light-humored entertainment than men. Perhaps it's those confrontational instincts. Men seem to choose dark and severe entertainment more often than women. Women seem more appreciative of silly jokes and behavior. I think that's one reason all of my sisters loved Mario Kart so much. Popular romances are more often comedies than tragedies, it seems (though, again, I could be way off on this).
NO IDEA
These are things worth considering, but I have no idea how they affect women gamers or games for women. They are psychological differences, though, so I think there probably is an effect of some kind in games.
When women fight
Cat fights are notoriously vicious. I wondered if this might be a myth, but the women I know don't think so and its confirmed at least in my own experience. I have no idea what the reason is for this ferocity, but I can't help but think it must translate into gaming somehow. Do cat fights tell us anything about women's perception or approach to any element of gameplay?
Dealing with pain
When studying psychology, I noticed that there might be a difference in the way men and women handle emotional pain. Depressive disorders are more common among women, and aggressive disorders are more common among men. Men seem more likely to project their pain onto others, while women seem to focus their pain inward (perhaps one reason encouragement is so appreciated).
Consolations
When a woman is approached by a friend with a problem (a non-emergency), she's likely to first respond with sympathy. Women seem to value emotions more than men, and when hurt or troubled like to know that a confidant understands the emotional distress. When a man is approached by a friend with a problem, he's likely to respond immediately with advice; to try to solve the problem.
Random adages on the subject
Men never forgive. Women never forget.
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
A woman can say more in a sigh than a man can say in a sermon.
Is there anything else y'all can think of? Any other area of possible difference?
Monday, June 02, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Bad Company contest winners!
The time has come for the winners to start blowing stuff up! In the end, there were about 60 entries and a lot of cool ideas. If your idea didn't win, that doesn't mean I don't like it. I had to go through four phases of culling. These are the criteria I used to judge (which, in hindsight, perhaps I should have listed before):
Here they are, THE WINNERS! and in no particular order:
Chris suggested a portable mortar. Trajectory-aimed weapons (you have to estimate the angle due to the pull of gravity) are a very unique and fun type of gameplay. This one can be carried and moved on your back, but can only be fired from a stationary position. It can destroy light armored vehicles and infantry. A player could fire it from behind buildings or other visual impediments. Though hidden, the user can be tracked by the following the mortar's trajectory and he would be vulnerable during the launcher's use.
Bryce suggested a gun for hallucinogenic darts. The beauty of this idea is that the hallucination is crippling but not completely incapacitating, but can offer far more dynamics than a flashbang or stun grenade through a variety of possible hallucinations. For example, the affected enemy's screen might temporarily display false damage indicators (shows he's getting hit from somewhere when he really isn't) or a false map. Something might obscure his vision... perhaps even something strange and amusing, as Bryce proposes. The basic concept was proven fun by the tranquilizer dartgun in Perfect Dark 64, and this takes that concept much further.
David suggested a gun with highly magnetic ammo, set by the player to a positive or negative charge, and meant to magnetize other objects. This idea has a lot of possibilities for dynamic use. Deflect or weaken a sniper's shot by spraying metal-repellant rounds between you. Magnetize two heavy objects to bring them together like a massive hammer. Shoot at an enemy above to push him off his perch. Or disrupt a vehicle. There are many possible uses for players to discover, though this one could be tricky to balance.
Luke suggested a G-Force grenade. It's a non-lethal grenade with enough kinetic force to send people flying, disrupt vehicles, clear an area, aid an escape, or help the player leap to a rooftop (like a Halo grenade, but without the damage).
Joseph suggested a gun that causes the shooter and hit enemy to switch places. He knows this weapon needs some restrictions, like limited ammo, and map design would be complicated. Like the other ideas, it opens up many possibilities. I picture a veteran player jumping off a cliff and then shooting an enemy before he falls. :)
Dag dag suggested a gun with the "replay" feature from The Fifth Element. Such a weapon would be dynamic, offer a fresh type of gameplay, and is probably easy to balance by giving it a short range and perhaps tweaking the bullet damage.
Daniel suggested the bouncing betty, a jumping landmine. Dying by mines would be much more dramatic (fun) if they shot two meters into the air before exploding. It also widens the likelihood of being non-fatally injured by shrapnel, and creates the possibility of being injured from across a waist-high wall or other barrier.
Kickflipfreak and darkman both suggested (and both will receive codes for) the CornerShot. It's a real gun that can shoot around corners by bending and offering vision through a camera.
And finally, Tom suggested the Mole Cannon, a user-guided subterranean explosive device. It's powerful but, because guiding it requires the user's whole screen, it leaves the user completely vulnerable during use. In fact, if its trail can be seen like a mole's trail, enemy players can track it; thereby forcing the player to constantly move. It could knock players upwards, over ledges, or even through windows. This seems like basically an improved, more balanced version of the Farsight concept in Perfect Dark 64 (which I'm surprised to mention twice in this post). Like the others, it provides dynamic fun.
Congratulations, all! I'll start emailing your codes right away.
There were five ideas that were each suggested by more than one person. Those popular ideas were an amphibious vehicle, the Corner Shot, a sniper rifle with explosive bullets (take out the cover with the explosive bullet, then kill the enemy with a normal bullet), a weapon or device that lets you permanently tag an enemy so they show up on radar (at least until killed), and (strangely enough) a weapon that changes its ammo or enemies into whatever is sampled from the environment (plastic, wood, metal, etc).
A sample of other good ideas: an APC with blind-firing, a gun-controlled sonic blast, an E-SMAW, a defibrillator, an entrapping but breakable force field, a shrapnel arrow, a wench gun, a SPAS-12, a throwable-retrievable bayonet, and a tag that emits colored smoke only when the enemy is in close proximity with other players (revealing where they're hiding or where the battle is). There were many more cool ideas.
I hope y'all agree with at least some of my choices.
- FUN: Obviously, this is the most important. Would the inclusion of this weapon/vehicle have players giddy with excitement and shouting triumphantly at the screen? Would players be talking about their experience long after it was over?
- FRESH: Innovation is appreciated, but I was asking more - Is this something gamers haven't experienced before? Would it feel like only a small spin on an old design or like a new type of gameplay? Remember, I mentioned the Halo sticky grenade as a great weapon, because being able to laugh as your enemy runs around screaming with terror in those seconds is priceless, as is watching that enemy run into a crowd of other players before exploding.
- BALANCED: Is it too powerful? Is its power offset by its limitation(s)? If there are 20 players on the map and 6 of them choose your weapon over other options, would that disrupt the battle?
- DYNAMICS: How much depth and variation does the idea offer? All you can do well with a sniper rifle is snipe, right? But finding good sniping positions, sneaking to those positions, combating the gun's unsteady aim, and choosing whether to wait for the headshot or shoot before the enemy moves... these variables surround the weapon and ensure that you can use it repeatedly and still have fresh, unique experiences. You can use the same gun 20 times and have 20 unique experiences. That's a dynamic weapon. Dynamics prolong a game's life, make experiences more memorable, and give players personal stories to share.
- DIFFICULTY TO IMPLEMENT: So the idea sounds fun... but would it be hell to design and balance? Most developers are willing to put a good bit of elbow grease behind a weapon's inclusion in their game, but some ideas have so many complications or require so much adjustment of the game's other weapons, maps, and other features that the idea just isn't cost-efficient. An idea that developers can implement quickly and easily for relatively great effect is an invaluable contribution, because that clears up their time and money to work on other parts of the game and make the whole product even better.
Here they are, THE WINNERS! and in no particular order:
Chris suggested a portable mortar. Trajectory-aimed weapons (you have to estimate the angle due to the pull of gravity) are a very unique and fun type of gameplay. This one can be carried and moved on your back, but can only be fired from a stationary position. It can destroy light armored vehicles and infantry. A player could fire it from behind buildings or other visual impediments. Though hidden, the user can be tracked by the following the mortar's trajectory and he would be vulnerable during the launcher's use.
Bryce suggested a gun for hallucinogenic darts. The beauty of this idea is that the hallucination is crippling but not completely incapacitating, but can offer far more dynamics than a flashbang or stun grenade through a variety of possible hallucinations. For example, the affected enemy's screen might temporarily display false damage indicators (shows he's getting hit from somewhere when he really isn't) or a false map. Something might obscure his vision... perhaps even something strange and amusing, as Bryce proposes. The basic concept was proven fun by the tranquilizer dartgun in Perfect Dark 64, and this takes that concept much further.
David suggested a gun with highly magnetic ammo, set by the player to a positive or negative charge, and meant to magnetize other objects. This idea has a lot of possibilities for dynamic use. Deflect or weaken a sniper's shot by spraying metal-repellant rounds between you. Magnetize two heavy objects to bring them together like a massive hammer. Shoot at an enemy above to push him off his perch. Or disrupt a vehicle. There are many possible uses for players to discover, though this one could be tricky to balance.
Luke suggested a G-Force grenade. It's a non-lethal grenade with enough kinetic force to send people flying, disrupt vehicles, clear an area, aid an escape, or help the player leap to a rooftop (like a Halo grenade, but without the damage).
Joseph suggested a gun that causes the shooter and hit enemy to switch places. He knows this weapon needs some restrictions, like limited ammo, and map design would be complicated. Like the other ideas, it opens up many possibilities. I picture a veteran player jumping off a cliff and then shooting an enemy before he falls. :)
Dag dag suggested a gun with the "replay" feature from The Fifth Element. Such a weapon would be dynamic, offer a fresh type of gameplay, and is probably easy to balance by giving it a short range and perhaps tweaking the bullet damage.
Daniel suggested the bouncing betty, a jumping landmine. Dying by mines would be much more dramatic (fun) if they shot two meters into the air before exploding. It also widens the likelihood of being non-fatally injured by shrapnel, and creates the possibility of being injured from across a waist-high wall or other barrier.
Kickflipfreak and darkman both suggested (and both will receive codes for) the CornerShot. It's a real gun that can shoot around corners by bending and offering vision through a camera.
And finally, Tom suggested the Mole Cannon, a user-guided subterranean explosive device. It's powerful but, because guiding it requires the user's whole screen, it leaves the user completely vulnerable during use. In fact, if its trail can be seen like a mole's trail, enemy players can track it; thereby forcing the player to constantly move. It could knock players upwards, over ledges, or even through windows. This seems like basically an improved, more balanced version of the Farsight concept in Perfect Dark 64 (which I'm surprised to mention twice in this post). Like the others, it provides dynamic fun.
Congratulations, all! I'll start emailing your codes right away.
There were five ideas that were each suggested by more than one person. Those popular ideas were an amphibious vehicle, the Corner Shot, a sniper rifle with explosive bullets (take out the cover with the explosive bullet, then kill the enemy with a normal bullet), a weapon or device that lets you permanently tag an enemy so they show up on radar (at least until killed), and (strangely enough) a weapon that changes its ammo or enemies into whatever is sampled from the environment (plastic, wood, metal, etc).
A sample of other good ideas: an APC with blind-firing, a gun-controlled sonic blast, an E-SMAW, a defibrillator, an entrapping but breakable force field, a shrapnel arrow, a wench gun, a SPAS-12, a throwable-retrievable bayonet, and a tag that emits colored smoke only when the enemy is in close proximity with other players (revealing where they're hiding or where the battle is). There were many more cool ideas.
I hope y'all agree with at least some of my choices.
not quite yet
The contest isn't over just yet. I'll still be accepting entries for another half-hour.
I'm just posting now to make clear that I won't be able to finish judging until all the entries are in (I've received 60 so far!), and the winners won't be announced for another hour or so after that. Y'all submitted a lot of good ideas, so it has taken me until now just to widdle the list down to 30 potential winners.
Sadly, there can only be 10.
--Highlander
I'm just posting now to make clear that I won't be able to finish judging until all the entries are in (I've received 60 so far!), and the winners won't be announced for another hour or so after that. Y'all submitted a lot of good ideas, so it has taken me until now just to widdle the list down to 30 potential winners.
Sadly, there can only be 10.
--Highlander
Thursday, May 29, 2008
signs of life
I'll admit it: I'm easily impressed.
When I played Crackdown recently, I was about to start climbing a building when the light went on in one of the windows. Nothing else happened. There were no shadows of people or even lamps or couches near the glass. But it was cool anyway, because it inspired my imagination to believe there was life on the other side.
Active NPCs generally offer the most powerful impression that a gameworld is alive, but you can use inanimate objects and the simplest of looped events to great effect. Window lights, a trail of paw prints next to a trash can, a chair knocked onto its back, an abandoned car with the hood up, a fire burning where nobody is around, a sign with graffiti over it, etc.
The key is that these simple objects suggest actions; that they let the player invent stories to explain a happening. In contrast, the layout of a room or a building's architecture offer information about culture and personality -- adjectives, rather than verbs. If you start the audience with a verb, any related adjectives are much more interesting. A fort naturally hints at a need to guard against enemies, but a fort with a broken gate and charred arrows still sticking in blackened rooftops hints at a recent battle... which makes the threat of enemies more relevant and interesting.
Players already, without any coaxing, want to believe that your gameworld is depthful and alive. It takes so little to feed their imaginations, so fill your world with little things.
When I played Crackdown recently, I was about to start climbing a building when the light went on in one of the windows. Nothing else happened. There were no shadows of people or even lamps or couches near the glass. But it was cool anyway, because it inspired my imagination to believe there was life on the other side.
Active NPCs generally offer the most powerful impression that a gameworld is alive, but you can use inanimate objects and the simplest of looped events to great effect. Window lights, a trail of paw prints next to a trash can, a chair knocked onto its back, an abandoned car with the hood up, a fire burning where nobody is around, a sign with graffiti over it, etc.
The key is that these simple objects suggest actions; that they let the player invent stories to explain a happening. In contrast, the layout of a room or a building's architecture offer information about culture and personality -- adjectives, rather than verbs. If you start the audience with a verb, any related adjectives are much more interesting. A fort naturally hints at a need to guard against enemies, but a fort with a broken gate and charred arrows still sticking in blackened rooftops hints at a recent battle... which makes the threat of enemies more relevant and interesting.
Players already, without any coaxing, want to believe that your gameworld is depthful and alive. It takes so little to feed their imaginations, so fill your world with little things.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
play Battlefield: Bad Company early!
Much to my surprise, EA has given me 10 codes that unlock the Battlefield: Bad Company demo on Xbox Live and PSN. The demo will be available to everyone on June 5th, but here's your chance to download it and starting blowing stuff up a week early!
I've come up with a little contest. Because of the short notice, I'll simply give the remaining codes away if too few have entered the contest by Friday at 7:00 p.m. (Central time; GMT minus 6 hours for you non-Americans).
To enter the contest: All you have to do is to submit your idea of a cool weapon or vehicle that you've never seen in a game but think could make for some great fun. If you want to point to a real weapon that just hasn't showed up in a game yet (an FSF-1 Sea Fighter, for example), that'll work; but preference will be given to original ideas. The best ideas are things that can single-handedly change gameplay, like the sticky grenades in Halo or the FarSight in Perfect Dark 64. Email your idea (one per entry; one entry per person) to me (Aaron) at hallower1980@gmail.com. On Friday night, the 10 winners will be emailed their codes to unlock the demo and the best weapon/vehicle ideas will be posted here on my site.
Again, this contest is only open until Friday at 7:00 p.m. CST, at which point all of the codes will be awarded. In the case of too few entries, remaining codes will be given away. So, for example, if only eight people enter the contest by Friday night, then those people will automatically win codes and I'll give the other two away.
The demo includes an early look into the single-player quest for Gold with Bad Company and, of course, multiplayer. Multiplayer takes the form of Gold Rush mode on the Oasis map (featuring land, sea, and air vehicles). It includes the ability to reach rank 4 and unlock an exclusive in-game weapon.
In case you've forgotten or haven't been watching it, Battlefield: Bad Company is a game by Dice that allows 24 players online and is all about destructible environments: "Create sniping positions by blowing out a piece of a wall or drive your tank straight through a small house."
War in a sandbox. Blow up the box. :)
Clarification (edit): I'm not a DICE or EA developer. EA was just generous enough to give a simple blogger like me the opportunity to host this contest.
And your weapon/vehicle idea doesn't have to be for Battlefield: Bad Company specifically... just something that a similar war game could use.
I've come up with a little contest. Because of the short notice, I'll simply give the remaining codes away if too few have entered the contest by Friday at 7:00 p.m. (Central time; GMT minus 6 hours for you non-Americans).
To enter the contest: All you have to do is to submit your idea of a cool weapon or vehicle that you've never seen in a game but think could make for some great fun. If you want to point to a real weapon that just hasn't showed up in a game yet (an FSF-1 Sea Fighter, for example), that'll work; but preference will be given to original ideas. The best ideas are things that can single-handedly change gameplay, like the sticky grenades in Halo or the FarSight in Perfect Dark 64. Email your idea (one per entry; one entry per person) to me (Aaron) at hallower1980@gmail.com. On Friday night, the 10 winners will be emailed their codes to unlock the demo and the best weapon/vehicle ideas will be posted here on my site.
Again, this contest is only open until Friday at 7:00 p.m. CST, at which point all of the codes will be awarded. In the case of too few entries, remaining codes will be given away. So, for example, if only eight people enter the contest by Friday night, then those people will automatically win codes and I'll give the other two away.
The demo includes an early look into the single-player quest for Gold with Bad Company and, of course, multiplayer. Multiplayer takes the form of Gold Rush mode on the Oasis map (featuring land, sea, and air vehicles). It includes the ability to reach rank 4 and unlock an exclusive in-game weapon.
In case you've forgotten or haven't been watching it, Battlefield: Bad Company is a game by Dice that allows 24 players online and is all about destructible environments: "Create sniping positions by blowing out a piece of a wall or drive your tank straight through a small house."
War in a sandbox. Blow up the box. :)
Clarification (edit): I'm not a DICE or EA developer. EA was just generous enough to give a simple blogger like me the opportunity to host this contest.
And your weapon/vehicle idea doesn't have to be for Battlefield: Bad Company specifically... just something that a similar war game could use.
RPG intros must have variables
Cameron gives a good ramble on the early levels of Age of Conan in his Player versus Everything column today. Predictably, many of the games shortcomings are typical to MMOs. One mistake, which Cameron mentions, that's made by seemingly all MMOs is a shortage of variables in the early game experience.
Damion Schubert spoke once about how important a player's introductory experience is. The further into the game, the more an MMO player has invested in the game (time, money, friends, work, etc); and so the more likely he is to continue his subscription. Players are most likely to leave in their first month, and are also likely to speak to a friend or on a blog about the game. The introductory experience also sets the tone for the entire game. It shapes how the player will perceive and approach future content.
Damion was talking primarily about quality, but just as important is variation. I'd bet that the vast majority of MMO players either create characters in addition to their main or start over when bored with their main. A significant portion create more than one alternate character, and some players (like me) put a lot of time into those alts. So the early game, more than any other part of the game, must be replayable.
Frankly, the replayability of most MMOs sucks. The main variable is the player's new choice of class and/or race. Games like EQ2, WoW, and CoH offer a choice of starting locales and low-level enemies. And then there's limited choice of gear (limited because there's usually an objectively optimal gearset which most players gravitate to). All of these dynamics are admirable, but they don't add up to a very fresh experience.
Why? The same combat strategy applies to all enemies. The loot is predictable and varies little within an enemy group. Experience points are always rewarded. Weapons and other gear have different numbers, but basically play the same. Locales offer different views, but little else. Nearly all quests are identical in goal and method. All factions work the same way. Every character's basic goals are the same. Level progression, gear progression, area progression, skill progression, faction progression... all progression is completely predictable and generally familiar to the player. There are new elements, but little to be surprised by and get excited about. In short, there's no adventure.
There could be.
Damion Schubert spoke once about how important a player's introductory experience is. The further into the game, the more an MMO player has invested in the game (time, money, friends, work, etc); and so the more likely he is to continue his subscription. Players are most likely to leave in their first month, and are also likely to speak to a friend or on a blog about the game. The introductory experience also sets the tone for the entire game. It shapes how the player will perceive and approach future content.
Damion was talking primarily about quality, but just as important is variation. I'd bet that the vast majority of MMO players either create characters in addition to their main or start over when bored with their main. A significant portion create more than one alternate character, and some players (like me) put a lot of time into those alts. So the early game, more than any other part of the game, must be replayable.
Frankly, the replayability of most MMOs sucks. The main variable is the player's new choice of class and/or race. Games like EQ2, WoW, and CoH offer a choice of starting locales and low-level enemies. And then there's limited choice of gear (limited because there's usually an objectively optimal gearset which most players gravitate to). All of these dynamics are admirable, but they don't add up to a very fresh experience.
Why? The same combat strategy applies to all enemies. The loot is predictable and varies little within an enemy group. Experience points are always rewarded. Weapons and other gear have different numbers, but basically play the same. Locales offer different views, but little else. Nearly all quests are identical in goal and method. All factions work the same way. Every character's basic goals are the same. Level progression, gear progression, area progression, skill progression, faction progression... all progression is completely predictable and generally familiar to the player. There are new elements, but little to be surprised by and get excited about. In short, there's no adventure.
There could be.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
fishing
I wrote this on Vanguard's forums years ago. Fishing is included in many MMOs as a bonus; but when it is, it's about as engaging as tying your shoes. It doesn't have to be that way. Anyway, my old post:
I think fishing is an area where some realism could make it a whole lot more fun. Now I haven't done much fresh-water fishing and I've never fly-fished, so I'll leave those to someone else to work out. But I have done saltwater pole fishing and spear fishing, so...
Give us different types of poles, lines, weights, baits, etc. There's only a point to this if you make fishing into something that involves practice and strategy.
When fishing off a saltwater shoreline, you have to monitor the tugging on your line very closely. The trick is that the waves and the current tug at your line too. So you often have to use experience and luck to discern when a fish is nibbling at your bait and you need to yank back on the pole to hook it. Sometimes, you'll mistake a wave or current for a nibble and you reel in your line to see the bait still on your hook. Other times, you reel in your line because it's been sitting there a long time...and sure enough, something stole your bait (damn you!).
A thicker pole won't break on you, but you also lose some of your ability to feel what's going on with your line. Stronger line is always better, just more expensive and often unnecessary. Weights are used to keep your hook and bait from being tossed to the surface by waves and currents. But you don't want to use too heavy a weight or your bait will be sitting in the mud...so there's a lot of wisdom and guesswork involved in picking a weight (assuming the strength of waves and currents on that shoreline vary). I can't say I ever used artificial lures (they don't seem to work very well with saltwater fishing).
Baits are a fun part of fishing. You could just use the shrimp, squid, minnows or whatnot you bought at the store. You might use your last catch in hopes of grabbing a bigger fish....perhaps cutting it up into small chunks. There could also be room for experimentation. My cousin, brother and I liked to catch and use sandfleas.....small crustaceans that burrow into the shoreline. In an MMO, it would be very cool if players could experiment by catching creatures like that and using them for bait. Catching sandfleas isn't always easy, so catching bait like this could be it's own mini-game.
Here's where all of this comes together.
Give players some sort of visual and audial means of detecting stress on the pole and line. In real life, I fish most by feeling movement....but in a game, you could watch the pole bend as well as watch a meter that simulates the feel...and you could hear the pole creak I suppose. A series of quick jerks usually means you've got a nibble...though not always. The player would also have to watch how the jerking relates to the waves. When a wave comes in, the part you don't see underneath is going the opposite direction and tugs at your line. So being able to see where your line enters the water is important.
If you put on too much weight, your bait will sit in the mud or get picked up by bottom-feeders (which could be good, if that's what you're fishing for). If you put on too little weight, your bait will pop out of the water or hang near the surface (which, again, can be good for particular fish).
If you use a thicker pole, your feel meter isn't as sensitive and your pole won't bend as much...but it won't break. And vice versa.
Different baits will attract different fish. Also, different baits can withstand different amounts of waves and tides. So if you didn't have wave variations in the game, you could use certain baits over again 3 times while others could be used 5 times, etc. You could have bits of shiny metal as spoons (heck, i imagine they got that name because people used to use real spoons; so why not do that?). With spoons, you're constantly casting and reeling in so the bait stays near the surface (so it can shimmer in the light) and simulates a swimming fish. In deeper waters, catching fish in the same spot for a while might attract sharks from all of the blood when you hook fish, so there's such thing as accidental bait. A funnier example is when people in small boats tie a big fish along the side (because they don't have room in the boat) and a shark will grab it. A Great White did that to some poor folks in the Gulf of Mexico years back and nearly tipped them into the water with it.
Lastly, I'd like to see fisherman catch a lot more than fish in a game. EQ had it so that you might fish out junk fish or just plain junk. In reality, that happens a lot (saltwater catfish, seaweed, driftwood, etc). But you also might catch rays (some sting you, some shock), eels (morays are poisonous, others shock you pretty badly), crabs (the little punks hang onto the line with their claws and let go at the shoreline), starfish and sand-dollars and urchins (no, they don't tug the line), octopi and squid (those suckers can hurt...and some squids have claws in every sucker), sharks (yeah, you're careful taking them off your line, haha) and plenty of other things. Plus, if it's a fantasy game, why not throw in a lot of stuff we've never seen before? Look at prehistoric fish (from the Devonian and Ordovician periods in particular) -- very different from today's sea life and very cool.
And I'd like to see fisherman get stung, bitten, shocked, and such on occasion. Most of the time, it should be nothing serious. Saltwater catfish in the Gulf of Mexico have stingers in their fins filled with a poison that makes it hurt more. It would be funny if something like that or a crab had the chance of hurting a character and making them hop around uncontrollably for a little bit. Other stuff, like highly poisonous fish (moray eels) and shockers could potentially kill you. I think it would be a cool addition if players could (rarely) die from fishing. Wouldn't that be a great tale to hear in the tavern one day?
But before I conclude my book of virtual fishing(TM), let's talk spear-fishing and deep sea fishing.
I haven't done underwater spearfishing (freediving) -- that's a whole other topic. But I have done spearfishing off the shoreline. It would be another cool mini-game. The screen turns into a first-person view, looking straight down into the water (perhaps seeing your bare feet below....different for every race (troll feet are nasty, I imagine). Different fish would move at different speeds across your screen. Plus, the water refracts the light a little bit, so you have to aim a little to the side of where you're seeing the fish (optional feature). If you've ever played the game Amazon Trail, that's basically what I'm talking about and it's very fun.
My cousin once caught a stingray with our spear. It was our first real catch with it, so it took a moment to recover from the shock before we realized the pole was moving out to sea!
As for deep-sea fishing. It would be cool if a game's boats could go trolling. You drag fishing lines behind you and fish bite the moving baits. It's simple and easy, and probably a great way to entertain players while traveling on boats. Some might even do shark-fishing with chum.
Just think... If I was more familiar with fresh-water fishing and fly-fishing, this post would have been twice as long. ;) I think most, if not all, of it can be worked into an MMO to make fishing more fun and create a couple quality mini-games. You'll notice that the pole fishing system in particular introduces personal customization, strategy, and reward for individual experience.
I think fishing is an area where some realism could make it a whole lot more fun. Now I haven't done much fresh-water fishing and I've never fly-fished, so I'll leave those to someone else to work out. But I have done saltwater pole fishing and spear fishing, so...
Give us different types of poles, lines, weights, baits, etc. There's only a point to this if you make fishing into something that involves practice and strategy.
When fishing off a saltwater shoreline, you have to monitor the tugging on your line very closely. The trick is that the waves and the current tug at your line too. So you often have to use experience and luck to discern when a fish is nibbling at your bait and you need to yank back on the pole to hook it. Sometimes, you'll mistake a wave or current for a nibble and you reel in your line to see the bait still on your hook. Other times, you reel in your line because it's been sitting there a long time...and sure enough, something stole your bait (damn you!).
A thicker pole won't break on you, but you also lose some of your ability to feel what's going on with your line. Stronger line is always better, just more expensive and often unnecessary. Weights are used to keep your hook and bait from being tossed to the surface by waves and currents. But you don't want to use too heavy a weight or your bait will be sitting in the mud...so there's a lot of wisdom and guesswork involved in picking a weight (assuming the strength of waves and currents on that shoreline vary). I can't say I ever used artificial lures (they don't seem to work very well with saltwater fishing).
Baits are a fun part of fishing. You could just use the shrimp, squid, minnows or whatnot you bought at the store. You might use your last catch in hopes of grabbing a bigger fish....perhaps cutting it up into small chunks. There could also be room for experimentation. My cousin, brother and I liked to catch and use sandfleas.....small crustaceans that burrow into the shoreline. In an MMO, it would be very cool if players could experiment by catching creatures like that and using them for bait. Catching sandfleas isn't always easy, so catching bait like this could be it's own mini-game.
Here's where all of this comes together.
Give players some sort of visual and audial means of detecting stress on the pole and line. In real life, I fish most by feeling movement....but in a game, you could watch the pole bend as well as watch a meter that simulates the feel...and you could hear the pole creak I suppose. A series of quick jerks usually means you've got a nibble...though not always. The player would also have to watch how the jerking relates to the waves. When a wave comes in, the part you don't see underneath is going the opposite direction and tugs at your line. So being able to see where your line enters the water is important.
If you put on too much weight, your bait will sit in the mud or get picked up by bottom-feeders (which could be good, if that's what you're fishing for). If you put on too little weight, your bait will pop out of the water or hang near the surface (which, again, can be good for particular fish).
If you use a thicker pole, your feel meter isn't as sensitive and your pole won't bend as much...but it won't break. And vice versa.
Different baits will attract different fish. Also, different baits can withstand different amounts of waves and tides. So if you didn't have wave variations in the game, you could use certain baits over again 3 times while others could be used 5 times, etc. You could have bits of shiny metal as spoons (heck, i imagine they got that name because people used to use real spoons; so why not do that?). With spoons, you're constantly casting and reeling in so the bait stays near the surface (so it can shimmer in the light) and simulates a swimming fish. In deeper waters, catching fish in the same spot for a while might attract sharks from all of the blood when you hook fish, so there's such thing as accidental bait. A funnier example is when people in small boats tie a big fish along the side (because they don't have room in the boat) and a shark will grab it. A Great White did that to some poor folks in the Gulf of Mexico years back and nearly tipped them into the water with it.
Lastly, I'd like to see fisherman catch a lot more than fish in a game. EQ had it so that you might fish out junk fish or just plain junk. In reality, that happens a lot (saltwater catfish, seaweed, driftwood, etc). But you also might catch rays (some sting you, some shock), eels (morays are poisonous, others shock you pretty badly), crabs (the little punks hang onto the line with their claws and let go at the shoreline), starfish and sand-dollars and urchins (no, they don't tug the line), octopi and squid (those suckers can hurt...and some squids have claws in every sucker), sharks (yeah, you're careful taking them off your line, haha) and plenty of other things. Plus, if it's a fantasy game, why not throw in a lot of stuff we've never seen before? Look at prehistoric fish (from the Devonian and Ordovician periods in particular) -- very different from today's sea life and very cool.
And I'd like to see fisherman get stung, bitten, shocked, and such on occasion. Most of the time, it should be nothing serious. Saltwater catfish in the Gulf of Mexico have stingers in their fins filled with a poison that makes it hurt more. It would be funny if something like that or a crab had the chance of hurting a character and making them hop around uncontrollably for a little bit. Other stuff, like highly poisonous fish (moray eels) and shockers could potentially kill you. I think it would be a cool addition if players could (rarely) die from fishing. Wouldn't that be a great tale to hear in the tavern one day?
But before I conclude my book of virtual fishing(TM), let's talk spear-fishing and deep sea fishing.
I haven't done underwater spearfishing (freediving) -- that's a whole other topic. But I have done spearfishing off the shoreline. It would be another cool mini-game. The screen turns into a first-person view, looking straight down into the water (perhaps seeing your bare feet below....different for every race (troll feet are nasty, I imagine). Different fish would move at different speeds across your screen. Plus, the water refracts the light a little bit, so you have to aim a little to the side of where you're seeing the fish (optional feature). If you've ever played the game Amazon Trail, that's basically what I'm talking about and it's very fun.
My cousin once caught a stingray with our spear. It was our first real catch with it, so it took a moment to recover from the shock before we realized the pole was moving out to sea!
As for deep-sea fishing. It would be cool if a game's boats could go trolling. You drag fishing lines behind you and fish bite the moving baits. It's simple and easy, and probably a great way to entertain players while traveling on boats. Some might even do shark-fishing with chum.
Just think... If I was more familiar with fresh-water fishing and fly-fishing, this post would have been twice as long. ;) I think most, if not all, of it can be worked into an MMO to make fishing more fun and create a couple quality mini-games. You'll notice that the pole fishing system in particular introduces personal customization, strategy, and reward for individual experience.
Monday, May 26, 2008
why is AoC so popular?
This isn't a review. I've never played Age of Conan, and haven't even payed much attention to it since I decided I'm not going to play another MMO with great graphics until I have a computer that can do it justice. These are just my guesses (and they are only guesses) at why Age of Conan has become one of the fastest-selling PC games of all time and has done particularly well in the North American market.
First, the combat is fast-paced. Note that the pace in World of Warcraft is also faster than the typical MMO. There's certainly no shortage of gamers interested in turn-based combat. But let's face it... more people watch football than play chess. Not everyone has the reflexes of a tiger, but Americans in particular are generally lovers of action, and patience is not an oft-praised virtue in our culture. Combine that with the MMO industry's dogmatic adherence to queu-form combat, and it's obvious how MMOs with more real-time combat will attract attention.
Second, the setting isn't watered down. Even parents who aren't fascinated by half-naked bodies and blood get tired of watching cartoons with their kids all the time. Nobody watches comedies exclusively. We all long for a little seriousness at times, and Conan provides a cold, stark, and serious setting. Like the fast-paced combat, this sort of setting is rare among MMOs and so immediately attractive as something fresh.
And why has the game done so well in North America in particular?
Western art and Western themes. One might call the art style gritty realism... very unlike Asian aesthetics. The Conan myth was written by a Texan during the Reconstruction period (the time when the victors of the Civil War were making life hard on Southerners) and inspired by European barbarians like the Picts. Asian cultures have their own barbarian ancestors and hard times, of course, but storytelling and thematic focus are immensely different on this side of the Pacific.
Then, of course, there's the Conan books and movies. I don't know how widespread the series is outside the USA, but I expect that it's sold well in Canada and Europe. The game's advertising is certainly helped by beginning from a decades-old and universally recognized IP.
Age of Conan certainly won't halt WoW's momentum, but it I bet it will steal quite a few WoW subscribers since they do share certain aspects. Regardless, it will significantly affect the MMO landscape by injecting some rare elements and exhibiting some post-WoW success for an MMO.
First, the combat is fast-paced. Note that the pace in World of Warcraft is also faster than the typical MMO. There's certainly no shortage of gamers interested in turn-based combat. But let's face it... more people watch football than play chess. Not everyone has the reflexes of a tiger, but Americans in particular are generally lovers of action, and patience is not an oft-praised virtue in our culture. Combine that with the MMO industry's dogmatic adherence to queu-form combat, and it's obvious how MMOs with more real-time combat will attract attention.
Second, the setting isn't watered down. Even parents who aren't fascinated by half-naked bodies and blood get tired of watching cartoons with their kids all the time. Nobody watches comedies exclusively. We all long for a little seriousness at times, and Conan provides a cold, stark, and serious setting. Like the fast-paced combat, this sort of setting is rare among MMOs and so immediately attractive as something fresh.
And why has the game done so well in North America in particular?
Western art and Western themes. One might call the art style gritty realism... very unlike Asian aesthetics. The Conan myth was written by a Texan during the Reconstruction period (the time when the victors of the Civil War were making life hard on Southerners) and inspired by European barbarians like the Picts. Asian cultures have their own barbarian ancestors and hard times, of course, but storytelling and thematic focus are immensely different on this side of the Pacific.
Then, of course, there's the Conan books and movies. I don't know how widespread the series is outside the USA, but I expect that it's sold well in Canada and Europe. The game's advertising is certainly helped by beginning from a decades-old and universally recognized IP.
Age of Conan certainly won't halt WoW's momentum, but it I bet it will steal quite a few WoW subscribers since they do share certain aspects. Regardless, it will significantly affect the MMO landscape by injecting some rare elements and exhibiting some post-WoW success for an MMO.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wii versus 360 and PS3
My friend Darren repeated something often said about this batch of consoles: the Wii is the only truly next-gen console, while the 360 and PS3 are not really very innovative. I disagree.
As I told Darren, he's in good company. Will Wright, my favorite game designer, has made much the same claim. But I think that view is a failure to look beyond the obvious. It fails to recognize that a simple increase in processing and memory can and often does have a huge effect on gameplay -- not just evolutionary change, but also revolutionary change.
I only have experience with the 360, so I'm going to focus exclusively on that console. And let's be clear about something: this is not a fan post. If I had the money to, I'd own all three consoles. This is in no way bashing the Wii. I just want to explain why the 360 and PS3 should not be accused of failing to innovate.
Even the Xbox 360's first batch of games hinted at the new possibilities unlocked by the console's power. Kameo, a game by Rare that reminded me a lot of DonkeyKong 64, proved the different type of fun that could be had from charging through an endless horde of enemies. Gears of Wars 2 will apparently explore that idea further.
Oblivion could not have happened on the Wii. The visuals in that game are not fluff... they're an essential part of the experience. The massive gameworld, which requires a lot of memory, is essential to the experience. Something else that's essential to Oblivion: complex controls. The Wii remote and nunchuk are cool, but they're not capable of as many control options as a single 360 controller with two pressure-sensitive analog sticks and 19 buttons (including being able to click the analog sticks and push the d-pad in 8 directions) aside from the Start button.
Could the lighting and shadows of Dead Space, combined with the game's strategic dismemberment feature and its zero gravity environments, be done on the Wii? Or the water effects of Bioshock? How about the flurry of AI and animations for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2? Or the detailed cities and motion-captured animations of Assassin's Creed?
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed will be released on every console, yet the 360 and PS3 aren't getting the multiplayer component that the other versions get. Why? I don't know, but I think it's probably meant to make up for the better experience the more powerful consoles are able to provide solely due to their power. One of the devs explicitly mentioned that the 360 and PS3 inspired them to make such a game. I'd be willing to bet that there's more than merely a difference in visuals between the game versions (but I could be wrong).
To be clear, the Wii is capable of impressive visuals, physics, and greater things than we've yet seen. But it's indisputably not capable of many specific designs.
One might argue that these new types of gameplay all could have been seen in PC gaming. But so could the Wii's motion controls. There's nothing any of the consoles have done that could not have been developed for the PC.
As I told Darren, he's in good company. Will Wright, my favorite game designer, has made much the same claim. But I think that view is a failure to look beyond the obvious. It fails to recognize that a simple increase in processing and memory can and often does have a huge effect on gameplay -- not just evolutionary change, but also revolutionary change.
I only have experience with the 360, so I'm going to focus exclusively on that console. And let's be clear about something: this is not a fan post. If I had the money to, I'd own all three consoles. This is in no way bashing the Wii. I just want to explain why the 360 and PS3 should not be accused of failing to innovate.
Even the Xbox 360's first batch of games hinted at the new possibilities unlocked by the console's power. Kameo, a game by Rare that reminded me a lot of DonkeyKong 64, proved the different type of fun that could be had from charging through an endless horde of enemies. Gears of Wars 2 will apparently explore that idea further.
Oblivion could not have happened on the Wii. The visuals in that game are not fluff... they're an essential part of the experience. The massive gameworld, which requires a lot of memory, is essential to the experience. Something else that's essential to Oblivion: complex controls. The Wii remote and nunchuk are cool, but they're not capable of as many control options as a single 360 controller with two pressure-sensitive analog sticks and 19 buttons (including being able to click the analog sticks and push the d-pad in 8 directions) aside from the Start button.
Could the lighting and shadows of Dead Space, combined with the game's strategic dismemberment feature and its zero gravity environments, be done on the Wii? Or the water effects of Bioshock? How about the flurry of AI and animations for LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2? Or the detailed cities and motion-captured animations of Assassin's Creed?
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed will be released on every console, yet the 360 and PS3 aren't getting the multiplayer component that the other versions get. Why? I don't know, but I think it's probably meant to make up for the better experience the more powerful consoles are able to provide solely due to their power. One of the devs explicitly mentioned that the 360 and PS3 inspired them to make such a game. I'd be willing to bet that there's more than merely a difference in visuals between the game versions (but I could be wrong).
To be clear, the Wii is capable of impressive visuals, physics, and greater things than we've yet seen. But it's indisputably not capable of many specific designs.
One might argue that these new types of gameplay all could have been seen in PC gaming. But so could the Wii's motion controls. There's nothing any of the consoles have done that could not have been developed for the PC.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
AI: beyond logic
Human beings are not logical. Or, rather, we're not only logical. Every one of us makes choices that depart from what we consciously perceive to be the best, most rational options. A person who exhibits no emotion is called robotic, because emotion is also an essential aspect of humanity. Some might even go further and say that the will is neither logic nor emotion, but something else.
My own view is that emotions are based in a sort of logic. Happiness is a response to communion with the things we love; togetherness. Sadness is a response to being apart from those objects. Anger is a response to injustice. And other emotions are generally some mixture of basic emotions like those, filtered through our own personal perceptions of what is truth, what is love, etc.
Regardless of what one theorizes emotions are, we are incapable of completely predicting human behavior. We can't even fully predict the behavior of many lesser animals.
Viewers of horror films often remark that particular characters are unbelievable because those characters act irrationally. I don't think the audience truly expects an absence of impediments to logic, such as fear and anger (or even varying degrees of intelligence). Instead, the audience is responding to the characters being too neatly fashioned... too predictable. Of course, she's just going to hide and cry until she's found and slaughtered! That's what they always do, right? Audiences generally expect characters to have half a brain, but the actions of depthful characters always contain surprises. A truly depthful character is not completely knowable, because no human being is completely knowable.
So where is all of this leading? When depth is a goal, AI should include self-contained variables. A character's actions should not be determined solely by a "personality" type plus environmental circumstances. Within that personality, there should be a variable range.
The same person placed in the same basic circumstance will often respond differently. In reality, this doesn't happen willy-nilly; it's in response to a change in internal circumstances (distraction, drowsiness, recurring thoughts due to individual values, new ideas conflicting with conditioning, etc). But trying to mimic the endless intricacies of a human personality is a lost cause. So a simulation meant to give the illusion of true depth should contain internal dice... doing for personality what the Euphoria engine does for physics, albeit accomplishing that illusion in a very different way.
Minor variables can have big consequences, as I'm sure AI programmers are very aware. If an enemy hesitates in combat for just a second, all sorts of things could happen in that second. The player might gain an advantage. The enemy's companions could arrive and start shooting. The wind or waves could change, pushing a vehicle slightly off its intended course. That moment's hesitation doesn't have to be exactly described by the programmers or animators, because the player's imagination will fill in the blanks. Perhaps it was fear. Perhaps it was a sudden realization. Perhaps it was his back going out of alignment (speaking of simulation... the problems of getting old!).
One thing game developers could learn from old movies (40s and 50s) is the benefits of innuendo and incomplete information. Scenes are most powerful when not everything is spelled out for the audience. That includes combat scenes.
Anyway, I think the future of storytelling in games lies largely in the development of better AIs. This is one way.
My own view is that emotions are based in a sort of logic. Happiness is a response to communion with the things we love; togetherness. Sadness is a response to being apart from those objects. Anger is a response to injustice. And other emotions are generally some mixture of basic emotions like those, filtered through our own personal perceptions of what is truth, what is love, etc.
Regardless of what one theorizes emotions are, we are incapable of completely predicting human behavior. We can't even fully predict the behavior of many lesser animals.
Viewers of horror films often remark that particular characters are unbelievable because those characters act irrationally. I don't think the audience truly expects an absence of impediments to logic, such as fear and anger (or even varying degrees of intelligence). Instead, the audience is responding to the characters being too neatly fashioned... too predictable. Of course, she's just going to hide and cry until she's found and slaughtered! That's what they always do, right? Audiences generally expect characters to have half a brain, but the actions of depthful characters always contain surprises. A truly depthful character is not completely knowable, because no human being is completely knowable.
So where is all of this leading? When depth is a goal, AI should include self-contained variables. A character's actions should not be determined solely by a "personality" type plus environmental circumstances. Within that personality, there should be a variable range.
The same person placed in the same basic circumstance will often respond differently. In reality, this doesn't happen willy-nilly; it's in response to a change in internal circumstances (distraction, drowsiness, recurring thoughts due to individual values, new ideas conflicting with conditioning, etc). But trying to mimic the endless intricacies of a human personality is a lost cause. So a simulation meant to give the illusion of true depth should contain internal dice... doing for personality what the Euphoria engine does for physics, albeit accomplishing that illusion in a very different way.
Minor variables can have big consequences, as I'm sure AI programmers are very aware. If an enemy hesitates in combat for just a second, all sorts of things could happen in that second. The player might gain an advantage. The enemy's companions could arrive and start shooting. The wind or waves could change, pushing a vehicle slightly off its intended course. That moment's hesitation doesn't have to be exactly described by the programmers or animators, because the player's imagination will fill in the blanks. Perhaps it was fear. Perhaps it was a sudden realization. Perhaps it was his back going out of alignment (speaking of simulation... the problems of getting old!).
One thing game developers could learn from old movies (40s and 50s) is the benefits of innuendo and incomplete information. Scenes are most powerful when not everything is spelled out for the audience. That includes combat scenes.
Anyway, I think the future of storytelling in games lies largely in the development of better AIs. This is one way.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
gold farming is criminal trespassing?
Apparently, breaking a site's terms of service might soon be considered criminal trespassing under federal law, as defined by a judge (they're legislators, too, these days). Zubon summed up the news perfectly, but I'd like to add one thing that's often forgotten: a law doesn't have to be reasonable or good to stand for decades in the courts. If the idea that breaking a site's TOS agreement is criminal trespassing sounds ridiculous to you, don't believe for a second that something ridiculous and unreasonable can't be made into law.
I have no idea what the judge will decide or what the response will be, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on.
I have no idea what the judge will decide or what the response will be, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
GTA 4: initial impressions
I'm finally back. Sorry for the long hiatus, but I was staying with a 90-year-old and, like most 90-year-olds, she doesn't have internet. Life without internet (or even a computer!)... I could hardly remember what that was like. Really, it's not so bad. Try it sometime. It's like camping. ;)
Anyway, I picked up GTA IV last week and thought I'd offer my initial impression of the game.
I haven't played it in a while. Instead, I've been playing Call of Duty 4. That's partially a testament to how great CoD4 multiplayer is, but it also reflects my relative boredom with GTA IV. Honestly, I'm wondering if I should have bought it or just saved my money for the plethora of other great games being released this year (two of which I've already pre-ordered). If you haven't seen Zero Punctuation's review yet, you might want to watch that before reading further. Like most of his reviews, this one mentioned many of my own thoughts.
I both like and dislike the realism. I certainly love it in the visuals. Driving in the rain or fog is a thrill. I like the gritty story. However, I agree with most of the points Zero Punctuation made.
Being able to go bowling, play darts or play pool with another character is great. For a sandbox-focused game, more options is good. But Rockstar made a mistake by having those characters call Niko on his phone. That makes the world seem more real, but it also deters the player from enjoying the sandbox by constantly turning the player's focus toward the linear content. It's partially a problem of pacing. Sandbox adventures (meaning small series of explorations that the player subconsciously connects into stories) take time to develop, and the player needs time to become immersed in that exploration. The invitations to hang out by Niko's companions disrupt that exploration and prevent the player from connecting happenstance events into personal stories. There's not enough undisrupted time to wander through the sandbox and find one's own crazy series of events.
The TV channels are funny, but why do I have to sit in my apartment to watch? The billiards, darts, and bowling could have been designed so that the player could watch TV between turns. I'm a fan of world-type games, but who wants to roleplay a couch-potato? The TV stations should have been enjoyable while doing other things, as the radio stations are. There was more humor on the airwaves of early GTA games, but the music is still good. It would be nice if the radio turned down/off automatically when Niko answers his cellphone, but that's the sort of attention to detail that's often lacking in GTA IV.
The vehicle handling is awful. In this case, the move toward realism was a very bad idea. There's nothing quite likeracing creeping away from cops in second gear because your car can't handle turns at higher speeds. This is how your grandma would evade police. Perhaps Dukes of Hazard -style chases emerge with faster cars later in the game; but if that's the case, shouldn't driving be fun in the beginning of the game, too? Driving in older GTA games was a blast, but not so in this one. And wouldn't it be more fun if passengers responded to wild driving and accidents more like those in the intro scene of The Darkness demo than like old Miss Daisy yelling at you to slow down? This is GTA, afterall -- players should be encouraged to act crazily, not like prim ninnies.
The control scheme for gunfighting on the 360 is strange. There doesn't seem to be any reason the typical FPS setup wouldn't work, except for shooting while driving. And in that case, shooting while driving is a chore as it is, and should have been done differently. Wouldn't it be more fun to let a companion NPC or an AI for Niko handle the driving or shooting controls while I handle the other? Wouldn't a close-camera chase or gunfight like that be more fun anyway than combining the two into less visceral, less fluid experience?
I hate for this early-glimpse (many hours of play) review to all be negative, so let me reiterate that the visuals are impressive, the story is good, and add that pressing "B" while driving to activate a cinematic camera is an awesome idea (too bad Microsoft still stupidly fails to offer Xbox 360 gamers the ability to take screenshots). The bowling, darts, and (especially) pool are all extremely well designed, though I do wish pool and darts included the same swinging use of the thumbstick that bowling does (to add that visceral feel). The physics is great, but more for its applications to animation (pedestrians moving and getting knocked around, vehicles colliding, etc) than applications to gameplay (driving, gunfights, etc).
GTA 2 and Vice City were better games. They let the player off the rails immediately, kept the pace up, allowed wild and silly fun while wandering every which way, and strived to be over-the-top in gameplay more than in libertine shocks (ex: yes, the hookers in GTA IV are funny, but the production time would have been better spent on further dynamics in combat and driving gameplay -- i.e., content that improves the game's lifespan / replayability).
I'll put more hours into GTA IV at some point. But my early impression is that Saints Row is as good, and Saints Row 2 might end up being a better game. Hold out for that one, if you haven't already bought GTA.
I'm looking forward to trying out the game's multiplayer modes. Perhaps that's where GTA IV really shines... though that would be strange, considering that the GTA series has always been about the single-player sandbox.
Anyway, I picked up GTA IV last week and thought I'd offer my initial impression of the game.
I haven't played it in a while. Instead, I've been playing Call of Duty 4. That's partially a testament to how great CoD4 multiplayer is, but it also reflects my relative boredom with GTA IV. Honestly, I'm wondering if I should have bought it or just saved my money for the plethora of other great games being released this year (two of which I've already pre-ordered). If you haven't seen Zero Punctuation's review yet, you might want to watch that before reading further. Like most of his reviews, this one mentioned many of my own thoughts.
I both like and dislike the realism. I certainly love it in the visuals. Driving in the rain or fog is a thrill. I like the gritty story. However, I agree with most of the points Zero Punctuation made.
Being able to go bowling, play darts or play pool with another character is great. For a sandbox-focused game, more options is good. But Rockstar made a mistake by having those characters call Niko on his phone. That makes the world seem more real, but it also deters the player from enjoying the sandbox by constantly turning the player's focus toward the linear content. It's partially a problem of pacing. Sandbox adventures (meaning small series of explorations that the player subconsciously connects into stories) take time to develop, and the player needs time to become immersed in that exploration. The invitations to hang out by Niko's companions disrupt that exploration and prevent the player from connecting happenstance events into personal stories. There's not enough undisrupted time to wander through the sandbox and find one's own crazy series of events.
The TV channels are funny, but why do I have to sit in my apartment to watch? The billiards, darts, and bowling could have been designed so that the player could watch TV between turns. I'm a fan of world-type games, but who wants to roleplay a couch-potato? The TV stations should have been enjoyable while doing other things, as the radio stations are. There was more humor on the airwaves of early GTA games, but the music is still good. It would be nice if the radio turned down/off automatically when Niko answers his cellphone, but that's the sort of attention to detail that's often lacking in GTA IV.
The vehicle handling is awful. In this case, the move toward realism was a very bad idea. There's nothing quite like
The control scheme for gunfighting on the 360 is strange. There doesn't seem to be any reason the typical FPS setup wouldn't work, except for shooting while driving. And in that case, shooting while driving is a chore as it is, and should have been done differently. Wouldn't it be more fun to let a companion NPC or an AI for Niko handle the driving or shooting controls while I handle the other? Wouldn't a close-camera chase or gunfight like that be more fun anyway than combining the two into less visceral, less fluid experience?
I hate for this early-glimpse (many hours of play) review to all be negative, so let me reiterate that the visuals are impressive, the story is good, and add that pressing "B" while driving to activate a cinematic camera is an awesome idea (too bad Microsoft still stupidly fails to offer Xbox 360 gamers the ability to take screenshots). The bowling, darts, and (especially) pool are all extremely well designed, though I do wish pool and darts included the same swinging use of the thumbstick that bowling does (to add that visceral feel). The physics is great, but more for its applications to animation (pedestrians moving and getting knocked around, vehicles colliding, etc) than applications to gameplay (driving, gunfights, etc).
GTA 2 and Vice City were better games. They let the player off the rails immediately, kept the pace up, allowed wild and silly fun while wandering every which way, and strived to be over-the-top in gameplay more than in libertine shocks (ex: yes, the hookers in GTA IV are funny, but the production time would have been better spent on further dynamics in combat and driving gameplay -- i.e., content that improves the game's lifespan / replayability).
I'll put more hours into GTA IV at some point. But my early impression is that Saints Row is as good, and Saints Row 2 might end up being a better game. Hold out for that one, if you haven't already bought GTA.
I'm looking forward to trying out the game's multiplayer modes. Perhaps that's where GTA IV really shines... though that would be strange, considering that the GTA series has always been about the single-player sandbox.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
babies
My brother's got a 4-month old baby right now. A baby can do anything -- absolutely anything -- and everyone thinks it's the cutest thing they've ever seen.
Whoever designs the first Nintendogs-style baby game will easily have enough money to fund their dream game.
Let the race begin! ;)
Whoever designs the first Nintendogs-style baby game will easily have enough money to fund their dream game.
Let the race begin! ;)
Friday, April 25, 2008
afk... again
My internet access is sporadic right now, since I'm staying with someone without internet for the next couple weeks (yes, such people exist). Once all this travelling stops, I'll be writing every day again. In the meantime, I'll hop on a computer whenever I get a chance.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
guards, snipers, and surveillance
So I'm back from New York, wondering how my trip to see the Pope could be the basis for a post on game design. And the first thing that comes to mind is bodyguards.
Many games have them, though we don't typically refer to them as bodyguards. Instead, we might think of "boss" NPCs and their "minions" or "mini-bosses". Whatever you want to call them, NPCs protecting or following other NPCs is a common sight in video games.
During his visit to New York, Pope Benedict XVI was protected by an unprecedented net of security. I was fortunate enough to be allowed on the steps of the St. Patrick Cathedral during the Mass. To get there, we had to park many blocks away, because a wide area surrounding the cathedral was blocked off and heavily guarded by police and special officers. I had to show my ticket and photo ID three times before reaching the cathedral, as well as walk through a metal detector. I'm told that the CIA did a background check on anyone who had a ticket for that area, but I can't verify that. Once on the cathedral steps, I noticed dogs, police captains and chiefs, helicopters overhead, snipers on all surrounding rooftops, secret service, and plenty of security personnel I couldn't identify. Moving between designated areas required an escort. Oh, and the Pope's bulletproof limousine was escorted by plenty of other vehicles, of course.
So what from that could be applied to game design?
Many games have them, though we don't typically refer to them as bodyguards. Instead, we might think of "boss" NPCs and their "minions" or "mini-bosses". Whatever you want to call them, NPCs protecting or following other NPCs is a common sight in video games.
During his visit to New York, Pope Benedict XVI was protected by an unprecedented net of security. I was fortunate enough to be allowed on the steps of the St. Patrick Cathedral during the Mass. To get there, we had to park many blocks away, because a wide area surrounding the cathedral was blocked off and heavily guarded by police and special officers. I had to show my ticket and photo ID three times before reaching the cathedral, as well as walk through a metal detector. I'm told that the CIA did a background check on anyone who had a ticket for that area, but I can't verify that. Once on the cathedral steps, I noticed dogs, police captains and chiefs, helicopters overhead, snipers on all surrounding rooftops, secret service, and plenty of security personnel I couldn't identify. Moving between designated areas required an escort. Oh, and the Pope's bulletproof limousine was escorted by plenty of other vehicles, of course.
So what from that could be applied to game design?
- Snipers: Guards and henchmen in games are always near to the NPC they're guarding. In some cases, it might prove fun for the player to have to worry about guards out of sight or watching from afar. Such guards might be melee opponents, encouraging the player to defeat his primary target before those guards can finally reach his location. Or the player might need to select a strike position that hides him from snipers. There are countless ways to tweak this idea, but the gist is that the player must include distant objects in his awareness and cannot avoid being flanked during combat.
- Safe Zones: Security might involve a buffer zone between light security and maximum security. The scope or even existence of such buffer zones might be dependent upon player actions and success/failure. Buffer zones can be empty, blockaded areas or simply involve restricted access. If security personnel look like civilians, or otherwise harmless, then even a thick crowd be a difficult place to hide.
- Animals: Sometimes, dogs are the smart ones; even sheep. Animals often have sensitivities beyond ours (smell, vision, electrical signatures, infrared, etc.), so they can be a useful dynamic in games. It could be fun to make players worry about detection beyond visibility or noise. And we can't read animal expressions as well as our own, so great tension can be created by an animal's stare ("Is it just passing by? Or does it detect danger?").
- Choppers and surveillance: Players might have to worry about danger beyond the immediate. That a player has escaped might not mean that danger has passed, if his escape was tracked and his location is known. Surprises are fun. Allow the player to think he's home-free, then pounce on him with a sting operation. Or make him worry about whether or not he is being watched as he makes his way to the headquarters of his faction or some secret location.
- Hold the Line: Of course, players are not always on offense. With the improved collision detection of modern games comes the possibility of the player participating in a blockade. Players can act as covert guards and snipers, thereby challenged to sniff out danger before it reveals itself. Players can act as drivers and escorts, thereby challenged to adjust escape routes in reaction to dynamic circumstances.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
the seventh day
God rested on the seventh day of creation. Why? He's ominpotent, right? So why would God need rest?
He doesn't. The point of that part of the story, and the reason many of our grandparents did not work on Sundays, is that no work is complete until it is appreciated. A crop is worthless until it is eaten. A symphony is worthless until it is heard. Work has no inherent value. Labor without reward is nothing more than good intentions.
Players need time and encouragement to reflect on their experiences and accomplishments. Cinematics, as they appear today, do not accomplish this. While they effectively pause gameplay, they also require rapt attention. The player is still working. Even a cinematic flashback of the player's own choices and experience is not good enough, if the player must remain actively attentive and cannot pause/review the sequence.
Players need downtime. By that, I mean players need time that is free of any demand on them, that lets them relax and lets the mind wander, reflecting and absorbing those memories at its own individual pace.
The developer's challenge is to encourage such downtime (even demand it) without disrupting the player's immersion in the game. Old films sometimes had intermissions accompanied by music and a static picture. The music helped keep the audience focused on the movie setting, but the removal of dialogue and visual action allowed people to reflect (yes, I know that wasn't the primary purpose of those intermissions). Likewise, game intermissions keep the player focused on the game setting, but offer respite from interaction.
One of the things the original Everquest game did right (though, perhaps, too severely) was to force rest. Resting not only encouraged chatting between players, it also encouraged reflection on each and every experience. Honestly, I complained about it at the time I played EQ. Being used to console games, I disliked the forced pauses. But it grew on me, as it did on thousands. Notice that the resting EQ character (and so, also, the player) remains surrounded by the moving gameworld during rest.
I'm constantly talking about dynamics, and there's one more use for them: scenery. To simply absorb and enjoy one's surroundings is something we all experience at times. Smartly placed and presented, it's a pleasure that makes downtime not difficult to bear.
I'm posting this a little early because I won't have internet access tomorrow.
He doesn't. The point of that part of the story, and the reason many of our grandparents did not work on Sundays, is that no work is complete until it is appreciated. A crop is worthless until it is eaten. A symphony is worthless until it is heard. Work has no inherent value. Labor without reward is nothing more than good intentions.
Players need time and encouragement to reflect on their experiences and accomplishments. Cinematics, as they appear today, do not accomplish this. While they effectively pause gameplay, they also require rapt attention. The player is still working. Even a cinematic flashback of the player's own choices and experience is not good enough, if the player must remain actively attentive and cannot pause/review the sequence.
Players need downtime. By that, I mean players need time that is free of any demand on them, that lets them relax and lets the mind wander, reflecting and absorbing those memories at its own individual pace.
The developer's challenge is to encourage such downtime (even demand it) without disrupting the player's immersion in the game. Old films sometimes had intermissions accompanied by music and a static picture. The music helped keep the audience focused on the movie setting, but the removal of dialogue and visual action allowed people to reflect (yes, I know that wasn't the primary purpose of those intermissions). Likewise, game intermissions keep the player focused on the game setting, but offer respite from interaction.
One of the things the original Everquest game did right (though, perhaps, too severely) was to force rest. Resting not only encouraged chatting between players, it also encouraged reflection on each and every experience. Honestly, I complained about it at the time I played EQ. Being used to console games, I disliked the forced pauses. But it grew on me, as it did on thousands. Notice that the resting EQ character (and so, also, the player) remains surrounded by the moving gameworld during rest.
I'm constantly talking about dynamics, and there's one more use for them: scenery. To simply absorb and enjoy one's surroundings is something we all experience at times. Smartly placed and presented, it's a pleasure that makes downtime not difficult to bear.
I'm posting this a little early because I won't have internet access tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
afk
Just some forewarning: I'll be out-of-town for a couple weeks, starting tomorrow, and cut off from the internet at least until Monday. I'll try to post at least something in that time, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have on a computer.
we need bots
There's a good post about opponent bots over at Gaming Verdict.
This is one of those industry changes that has slipped under the radar, I think. My friends and I used to spend a ridiculous amount of time playing with bots in Perfect Dark on the N64. Super Smash Bros. is another great example. I'm always disappointed when games that could include bots don't.
COMPETITION
Gaming Verdict mentions the steep learning curve of gaming against human opponents. Just the other day, I was introducing a friend to Call of Duty 4 multiplayer; the game didn't take. He told me that it definitely seemed awesome, but someone like him, for whom games are only occasional recreation and whose reflexes are no longer lightning-quick, simply can't compete. And competing split-screen, just me versus him, is nothing like the gleeful chaos of our Perfect Dark experience.
All games have that problem with competition... not just FPS fragfests that require split-second reactions. I'm a fervent and lifelong gamer, but even I don't try to compete online with my favorite RTS game, Battle for Middle Earth 2. The several family members and friends with whom I've played that game prefer to team up against bots in skirmishes or campaigns.
Michael de Plater, the creative director of Tom Clancy's Endwar, has cited that upcoming game's use of voice commands as a way to counteract the advantage of knowing macros and complex controls, but difficulty of control isn't half the problem (in fairness, de Plater doesn't suggest that it is). Most competitive online gaming networks feel as if professional, college, and high school sports conferences were combined into one. More than a few factors separate the amateur from the professional.
CoD4 admirably matches pros with amateurs in team matches, but I think the amateurs more often feel more useless and outmatched than like they're contributing to the team. That's how my friend felt. That's how I feel sometimes... especially when another player clearly knows the map, and I don't. The greatest sense of accomplishment comes from winning; nearly losing, but winning. Losing occasionally or even half the time is no problem. Losing almost every time is not fun for most people (unless it's to a pretty lady, of course). Relatively few have the personality type that views nine losses as an acceptable price for one win, when he or she is only competing for entertainment. One can view his or her own mild contributions as meaningful contributions, but that is, perhaps, not an automatic or particularly common view.
The skill levels and playstyles of players are hard to quantify, so matchmaking systems only help so much. In fact, matchmaking is downright useless when players alternate between play-options. A player might be good with some weapons/units, but not others; with some factions, but not with others; on some maps or scenarios/modes, but not others. And suppose I've improved my skills in single-player mode since the last time I played multiplayer. Should I now have to begin facing easy human opponents, because I haven't yet proven myself to matchmaking system?
Furthermore, a person's playstyle and desired degree of investment in the game can change from session to session. A gamer can feel particularly competitive one day and be interested in only leisurely engagement the next (perhaps due to being tired after a long day's work).
Remember that the difference between a professional and amateur isn't just skill and experience, but interest. A lot of people play casual club sports -- not because they're not capable of more intense performance -- because they prefer a different pace, different style and rules, or do not consider the game a high priority.
Finally, though I'm generally a big fan of reducing predictability in games, bots can actually offer a deeper sense of strategy than human opponents precisely because they're more predictable. Half of battle strategy is anticipating your opponent's next move. When you're playing against hundreds or thousands, if not millions, of other human beings, then you rarely face the same opponent more than once or twice. As a result, you can only learn and adjust to the broad strategies that are common among players, and not the specific strategies of individuals.
Online multiplayer games are more tactical than strategic... the player must react to momentary events, rather than plan for organized movements. Bots (particularly, campaigns against bots) enable true strategy.
PAUSE
Another thing I had to explain to my friend about CoD4 multiplayer was why one of his matches was ended abruptly when "the host... left the game". Sure, there are plenty of inconsiderate players who cut a game off just because they didn't like the map or the way the match was going, but there are also players answering telephones or doors, being distracted by kids or pets, or having to unexpectedly end their play-sessions.
As Gaming Verdict points out, the ability to pause is easier with bot-driven games. Games could even be designed to automatically replace a player's character with a bot if that player has to leave the game temporarily. Life is unpredictable. A purely logical software program is more likely to understand that than a stranger.
I realize that developing fun and competitive AI is no quick or easy task. But remember that even simple AI can be fun when combined with the right dynamics (ex: Turok shows that even a dinosaur that simply runs straight for you is tough when there's also a soldier nearby shooting at you).
We miss our bots. Give them back.
This is one of those industry changes that has slipped under the radar, I think. My friends and I used to spend a ridiculous amount of time playing with bots in Perfect Dark on the N64. Super Smash Bros. is another great example. I'm always disappointed when games that could include bots don't.
COMPETITION
Gaming Verdict mentions the steep learning curve of gaming against human opponents. Just the other day, I was introducing a friend to Call of Duty 4 multiplayer; the game didn't take. He told me that it definitely seemed awesome, but someone like him, for whom games are only occasional recreation and whose reflexes are no longer lightning-quick, simply can't compete. And competing split-screen, just me versus him, is nothing like the gleeful chaos of our Perfect Dark experience.
All games have that problem with competition... not just FPS fragfests that require split-second reactions. I'm a fervent and lifelong gamer, but even I don't try to compete online with my favorite RTS game, Battle for Middle Earth 2. The several family members and friends with whom I've played that game prefer to team up against bots in skirmishes or campaigns.
Michael de Plater, the creative director of Tom Clancy's Endwar, has cited that upcoming game's use of voice commands as a way to counteract the advantage of knowing macros and complex controls, but difficulty of control isn't half the problem (in fairness, de Plater doesn't suggest that it is). Most competitive online gaming networks feel as if professional, college, and high school sports conferences were combined into one. More than a few factors separate the amateur from the professional.
CoD4 admirably matches pros with amateurs in team matches, but I think the amateurs more often feel more useless and outmatched than like they're contributing to the team. That's how my friend felt. That's how I feel sometimes... especially when another player clearly knows the map, and I don't. The greatest sense of accomplishment comes from winning; nearly losing, but winning. Losing occasionally or even half the time is no problem. Losing almost every time is not fun for most people (unless it's to a pretty lady, of course). Relatively few have the personality type that views nine losses as an acceptable price for one win, when he or she is only competing for entertainment. One can view his or her own mild contributions as meaningful contributions, but that is, perhaps, not an automatic or particularly common view.
The skill levels and playstyles of players are hard to quantify, so matchmaking systems only help so much. In fact, matchmaking is downright useless when players alternate between play-options. A player might be good with some weapons/units, but not others; with some factions, but not with others; on some maps or scenarios/modes, but not others. And suppose I've improved my skills in single-player mode since the last time I played multiplayer. Should I now have to begin facing easy human opponents, because I haven't yet proven myself to matchmaking system?
Furthermore, a person's playstyle and desired degree of investment in the game can change from session to session. A gamer can feel particularly competitive one day and be interested in only leisurely engagement the next (perhaps due to being tired after a long day's work).
Remember that the difference between a professional and amateur isn't just skill and experience, but interest. A lot of people play casual club sports -- not because they're not capable of more intense performance -- because they prefer a different pace, different style and rules, or do not consider the game a high priority.
Finally, though I'm generally a big fan of reducing predictability in games, bots can actually offer a deeper sense of strategy than human opponents precisely because they're more predictable. Half of battle strategy is anticipating your opponent's next move. When you're playing against hundreds or thousands, if not millions, of other human beings, then you rarely face the same opponent more than once or twice. As a result, you can only learn and adjust to the broad strategies that are common among players, and not the specific strategies of individuals.
Online multiplayer games are more tactical than strategic... the player must react to momentary events, rather than plan for organized movements. Bots (particularly, campaigns against bots) enable true strategy.
PAUSE
Another thing I had to explain to my friend about CoD4 multiplayer was why one of his matches was ended abruptly when "the host... left the game". Sure, there are plenty of inconsiderate players who cut a game off just because they didn't like the map or the way the match was going, but there are also players answering telephones or doors, being distracted by kids or pets, or having to unexpectedly end their play-sessions.
As Gaming Verdict points out, the ability to pause is easier with bot-driven games. Games could even be designed to automatically replace a player's character with a bot if that player has to leave the game temporarily. Life is unpredictable. A purely logical software program is more likely to understand that than a stranger.
I realize that developing fun and competitive AI is no quick or easy task. But remember that even simple AI can be fun when combined with the right dynamics (ex: Turok shows that even a dinosaur that simply runs straight for you is tough when there's also a soldier nearby shooting at you).
We miss our bots. Give them back.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
raid leaders aren't your friends
In response to Cameron's excellent post on Massively:
General George Patton once said, "I don't want my men to like me. I want them to fight for me." He was right. He got more out of his men than General Bradley, who used honey. But he wasn't talking about fun. He was talking about war.
Raids, in their current form, place unnecessary tension between fun and efficiency... and make me wonder if endgame MMO content is really about entertainment. A sense of achievement shouldn't be confused with fun. A raid (again, in the present form) is basically a group struggle focused on individual reward. Not all struggles are enjoyable.
Basketball and football are rigidly organized. The best coaches are always hard-nosed generals who only loosen up after victory (look at "Bear" Bryant, the coach with the greatest record in the history of NCAA football). But, likewise, those players often don't consider their sport fun during the games... only after the games, in retrospect.
Raids seem similar. During the raid, fun isn't a real value; but it might be considered fun in retrospect.The sad thing is that all raiding is that way. MMOs include content for a variety of interests and playstyles in their early levels. Why must the endgame always boil down to mechanical guild work and achievement-focused gameplay?
Also, soldiers should be more than mere cogs in a rigidly ordered machine (as they are in reality). Efficiently performing one's role shouldn't negate all individuality.
epic achievement in CoD4!
I try to keep this site solely about design and industry commentary, but I'm going to make an exception.
I was the top player in a Call of Duty 4 Ground War!
I know people do this all the time, but not me. I'm generally not a good competitor in any game, since my playstyle alternates between leisurely and reckless. But reckless is apparently the way to go in 9-on-9 Domination!
Anyway, I was the top player of the battle with 34 kills (courtesy of two airstrikes and a chopper), using the P90 in the Downpour map.
I've actually been hovering around 20 kills per match today, usually keeping me in the top 5 players per battle. It seems to be mostly about aggression. The only time I'm not moving is when I'm reloading (helpless). A good portion of the time, I'm running straight up to someone and stabbing him in the heart.
In the words of the great General George Patton: "My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the bastard's throat."
As thrilled as I am to have finally secured the top rank in a battle (I've hit second too many times!), that might not even be the coolest achievement of the day. In one deathmatch, my team was doing particularly poorly. Most of us were snipers and playing defensively... and dying. Finally, I decided we needed someone on offense. So I switched to assault rifle and went on the hunt.
I killed every person on the opposing team (5 or 6 people) in a matter of seconds. Half of 'em were holed up in one building, and I knifed them all in the backs. It was a glorious moment!
I was the top player in a Call of Duty 4 Ground War!
I know people do this all the time, but not me. I'm generally not a good competitor in any game, since my playstyle alternates between leisurely and reckless. But reckless is apparently the way to go in 9-on-9 Domination!
Anyway, I was the top player of the battle with 34 kills (courtesy of two airstrikes and a chopper), using the P90 in the Downpour map.
I've actually been hovering around 20 kills per match today, usually keeping me in the top 5 players per battle. It seems to be mostly about aggression. The only time I'm not moving is when I'm reloading (helpless). A good portion of the time, I'm running straight up to someone and stabbing him in the heart.
In the words of the great General George Patton: "My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the bastard's throat."
As thrilled as I am to have finally secured the top rank in a battle (I've hit second too many times!), that might not even be the coolest achievement of the day. In one deathmatch, my team was doing particularly poorly. Most of us were snipers and playing defensively... and dying. Finally, I decided we needed someone on offense. So I switched to assault rifle and went on the hunt.
I killed every person on the opposing team (5 or 6 people) in a matter of seconds. Half of 'em were holed up in one building, and I knifed them all in the backs. It was a glorious moment!
Monday, April 14, 2008
can MMOs learn from GTA?
A long time ago, I told Bildo I'd explore what MMOs could learn from the GTA series. Well, here it is, finally.
Satire
The GTA games certainly contain more than their share of escapism. That's why kind-hearted, conscientious people laugh giddily while stealing cars and beating characters over the heads with baseball bats. It doesn't feel real.
On the other hand, GTA regularly alludes to the real world and participates in satire. Satire is about confronting real issues in entertaining ways. The most common form of satire is reduction to absurdity. A humorous spin can get considerations past people's natural defenses, and works much like myth in encouraging depthful thinking by providing only the right questions and the foundations of greater problems.
The point is: GTA alludes to real and controversial issues, but does so in a way that even people like me, who generally disagree with Rockstar's political and cultural views, still enjoy the games. MMOs don't have to avoid reality or serious issues. It's possible for reality and escapism to exist within the same game, with neither negating the other.
That said, there is such a thing as bad satire. Good satire presents things thoughtfully and without animosity, if also playfully kidding ("It's exactly the ethos our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, and then changed it [emphasis is mine]... which is what makes it sacred now"). Bad satire attacks a viewpoint without respect or honest and just consideration (like some of GTA's other jokes), thereby accomplishing nothing more than preaching to the choir and promoting disdain.
Humor
Of course, not all humor has to be satirical. Some game settings (like Warhammer) are more conducive to humor than others (World of Darkness), but humor has a place in all games.
The most memorable MMO quests I've ever experienced were two funny quests in EQ2. One had me running all over Freeport, passing along nonsensical messages because my character was mistaken for someone else and the quest-giver thought I was speaking in code and misdirections. It was hilarious. The other, at the Crossroads of the Commonlands, had me follow an NPC who claimed to hear ghosts so that the quest-giver could denounce her as crazy. When I reported that I, too, had heard the ghost, the guard thought I was crazy as well.
The wonder of humor is that it's the human way of finding joy in the most mundane and unattractive activities and situations. We're wired to search for happiness. The jokes and humorous situations that developers include are not just valuable in their own right. They promote that search for happiness and the use of imagination in players. If you make humor a significant part of your game (even dark humor, as might fit World of Darkness), then players will be encouraged to view game flaws with a smile and turn the least interesting activities into joyful occasions.
Quick, simple kills can be fun
In general, no, it's not fun when every encounter is quick and simple. But there are countless games that prove that gamers can take pleasure from one-hit kills and swarms of lesser enemies.
Some of the most enjoyable combat I ever experienced in MMOs was managing large groups of weaker opponents in Everquest 2 and City of Heroes. Soloing necromancers on rooftops was how I experienced tactical positioning and strategic knockbacks in CoH (knocking one or two enemies off the rooftop to even the odds until those enemies made their way back up). Fighting EQ2 thugs in The Sprawl, I was nearly overwhelmed by the challenge of tactically shifting my focus between enemies (kill the toughest or weakest first? which is blocking my escape route? which was weakened most by that last area-effect attack?).
As server technology improves, it's increasingly feasible to face players with bigger groups of lesser enemies. Experiment.
Toys vs games
A game has defined rules and goals. If you use the board and pieces included in a Monopoly box but change the rules and goal, then you're not playing Monopoly.
A playground merely provides objects which can be made into instruments of fun (toys) through a little imagination. A sandbox is the quintessential playground, because sand can be shaped into anything and the player might not be provided any ideas with which to begin.
The difference between toys and games often blurs, as it does with billiards. MMOs are games, but there are great advantages to including playgrounds in their design, as GTA does:
Satire
The GTA games certainly contain more than their share of escapism. That's why kind-hearted, conscientious people laugh giddily while stealing cars and beating characters over the heads with baseball bats. It doesn't feel real.
On the other hand, GTA regularly alludes to the real world and participates in satire. Satire is about confronting real issues in entertaining ways. The most common form of satire is reduction to absurdity. A humorous spin can get considerations past people's natural defenses, and works much like myth in encouraging depthful thinking by providing only the right questions and the foundations of greater problems.
The point is: GTA alludes to real and controversial issues, but does so in a way that even people like me, who generally disagree with Rockstar's political and cultural views, still enjoy the games. MMOs don't have to avoid reality or serious issues. It's possible for reality and escapism to exist within the same game, with neither negating the other.
That said, there is such a thing as bad satire. Good satire presents things thoughtfully and without animosity, if also playfully kidding ("It's exactly the ethos our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, and then changed it [emphasis is mine]... which is what makes it sacred now"). Bad satire attacks a viewpoint without respect or honest and just consideration (like some of GTA's other jokes), thereby accomplishing nothing more than preaching to the choir and promoting disdain.
Humor
Of course, not all humor has to be satirical. Some game settings (like Warhammer) are more conducive to humor than others (World of Darkness), but humor has a place in all games.
The most memorable MMO quests I've ever experienced were two funny quests in EQ2. One had me running all over Freeport, passing along nonsensical messages because my character was mistaken for someone else and the quest-giver thought I was speaking in code and misdirections. It was hilarious. The other, at the Crossroads of the Commonlands, had me follow an NPC who claimed to hear ghosts so that the quest-giver could denounce her as crazy. When I reported that I, too, had heard the ghost, the guard thought I was crazy as well.
The wonder of humor is that it's the human way of finding joy in the most mundane and unattractive activities and situations. We're wired to search for happiness. The jokes and humorous situations that developers include are not just valuable in their own right. They promote that search for happiness and the use of imagination in players. If you make humor a significant part of your game (even dark humor, as might fit World of Darkness), then players will be encouraged to view game flaws with a smile and turn the least interesting activities into joyful occasions.
Quick, simple kills can be fun
In general, no, it's not fun when every encounter is quick and simple. But there are countless games that prove that gamers can take pleasure from one-hit kills and swarms of lesser enemies.
Some of the most enjoyable combat I ever experienced in MMOs was managing large groups of weaker opponents in Everquest 2 and City of Heroes. Soloing necromancers on rooftops was how I experienced tactical positioning and strategic knockbacks in CoH (knocking one or two enemies off the rooftop to even the odds until those enemies made their way back up). Fighting EQ2 thugs in The Sprawl, I was nearly overwhelmed by the challenge of tactically shifting my focus between enemies (kill the toughest or weakest first? which is blocking my escape route? which was weakened most by that last area-effect attack?).
As server technology improves, it's increasingly feasible to face players with bigger groups of lesser enemies. Experiment.
Toys vs games
A game has defined rules and goals. If you use the board and pieces included in a Monopoly box but change the rules and goal, then you're not playing Monopoly.
A playground merely provides objects which can be made into instruments of fun (toys) through a little imagination. A sandbox is the quintessential playground, because sand can be shaped into anything and the player might not be provided any ideas with which to begin.
The difference between toys and games often blurs, as it does with billiards. MMOs are games, but there are great advantages to including playgrounds in their design, as GTA does:
- Expansions unnecessary. In a playground, players expect to entertain themselves. Imagination is limitless, and is in need only of fellow playmates to inspire and approve ideas. Provide interesting settings, feed your player's imagination, and you'll have considerably less pressure to expand content through major additions. Carjacking in GTA never gets old.
- Being is doing. Character customization palettes (ala CoH), class/skill variables, and expansive loot tables will never match the potential breadth of variety and felt individuality that accompanies imaginative and discoverable action. Players feel like individuals when they are capable of unique actions. One of the things that turns GTA players into GTA fanatics is that they can tell their friends about gameplay experiences that aren't common, despite the millions of players. The more dynamics, the more potential for personal stories... and some dynamics are better than others. The single inclusion of sticky grenades in the Halo series has enabled countless personal and enthusiastic stories. To sum up: playgrounds offer more bang for your buck (are more cost-effective).
- Word-of-mouth is the best advertising. And the enthusiastic sharing of personal game experiences is word-of-mouth advertising. Look at the immense number of player-made videos that have popped up around Halo 3. What pictures are MMO players constantly posting on their websites? Character shots and guild raids (i.e, individually relevant experiences). The more you loosen the reins to allow players to "pause" the game to enjoy its sandbox content, the more you're encouraging personal exploration and the creation of shareable experiences. Just be sure to make the capturing and labeling of experience (screenshots, videos, etc) as simple and accessible as possible.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
gaming with stick figures
My dad has a fierce and unruly temper. I was shocked when my sister-in-law said she had never seen him angry, because I always saw him angry at least a few times every day. It could be from watching a football game he didn't care about, driving, someone interrupting or contradicting him, or dozens of other little things. He's angry all the time... except when entertaining company. He can control his temper; he just doesn't do it around family.
All people are that way. Our behavior and even thinking changes drastically from one social group to another. Different situations call upon different aspects of our personality, and cause us to emphasize one more than another. Each person has only one personality, but each personality contains many faces.
Sadly, game characters aren't that way. For all the progress that's been made in game stories, we're still seeing characters with just one face to show through the entire story. Game writers are still avoiding depthful personalities.
A depthful character isn't merely brave. He is brave in some situations and not others. The man who would readily risk his own life on the battlefield might be terrified of public speaking or mingling at a party. The socialite who effortlessly mixes with strangers might be less sure of herself when facing persons with whom she has deep relationships, like family. The warrior who could wrestle a lion might be afraid of the water, unable to swim.
A depthful character isn't merely loving. What one person considers tough love, another consider cruel. What one person considers acceptance, another considers willingness to condone the other's self-destruction. A depthful character has a specific and personal conception of what love is.
Don't try to offer depth like this through dialogue. Dialogue limits the player to the developers' own preferences and foresight, as Mass Effect did. The player's actions are certainly limited as well, but the fuzzier definition allows the player's imagination to reforge events closer to his or her true intentions. Generally, it not as important that the game know why I choose a particular action as it is that I know why. The story of any game does not exist wholly on the screen.
All people are that way. Our behavior and even thinking changes drastically from one social group to another. Different situations call upon different aspects of our personality, and cause us to emphasize one more than another. Each person has only one personality, but each personality contains many faces.
Sadly, game characters aren't that way. For all the progress that's been made in game stories, we're still seeing characters with just one face to show through the entire story. Game writers are still avoiding depthful personalities.
A depthful character isn't merely brave. He is brave in some situations and not others. The man who would readily risk his own life on the battlefield might be terrified of public speaking or mingling at a party. The socialite who effortlessly mixes with strangers might be less sure of herself when facing persons with whom she has deep relationships, like family. The warrior who could wrestle a lion might be afraid of the water, unable to swim.
A depthful character isn't merely loving. What one person considers tough love, another consider cruel. What one person considers acceptance, another considers willingness to condone the other's self-destruction. A depthful character has a specific and personal conception of what love is.
Don't try to offer depth like this through dialogue. Dialogue limits the player to the developers' own preferences and foresight, as Mass Effect did. The player's actions are certainly limited as well, but the fuzzier definition allows the player's imagination to reforge events closer to his or her true intentions. Generally, it not as important that the game know why I choose a particular action as it is that I know why. The story of any game does not exist wholly on the screen.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Voicechat vs music and sound
Over at Cuppy's latest blog, Tachevert makes an excellent point:
"I take music pretty seriously, and I’ve historically ALWAYS left music and sound on in games. Lately, though, I do find myself backing off on MMO music — especially if I’m raiding or otherwise trying to use voice chat. Without sound effects, though, I always feel as though I’m missing too many cues to the action."
Brent pointed out weeks ago that SOE will soon be integrating voicechat software into all of their games, and I expect other companies might be doing this as well.
Are voicechat and music inherently at odds? How about voicechat and sound effects?
"I take music pretty seriously, and I’ve historically ALWAYS left music and sound on in games. Lately, though, I do find myself backing off on MMO music — especially if I’m raiding or otherwise trying to use voice chat. Without sound effects, though, I always feel as though I’m missing too many cues to the action."
Brent pointed out weeks ago that SOE will soon be integrating voicechat software into all of their games, and I expect other companies might be doing this as well.
Are voicechat and music inherently at odds? How about voicechat and sound effects?
playing with fear
The faces of fear
In a college course I took on Gothic literature, I was taught that the readers of Victorian England distinguished between two types of fear: horror and terror.
Horror is the fear from which one flees. It is obvious, bold, and usually aggressive. The creature in the movie Alien is a horror, as most monsters are.
Terror is the fear that paralyzes. There is an element of mystery about it that makes the victim immobile with wonder and uncertainty. Ghosts tend to be terrors, as are cool-tempered murderers and vampires. Terror is often accompanied by what Freud labeled the uncanny... the feeling of something being strange but somehow familiar as well.
Which face to show?
In every aspect of a story's presentation, frightening objects are capable of being either horrifying or terrifying.
A harsh, guttural roar will cause a player to run from the sound. The muted gurgling sound of someone being strangled, on the other hand, will make the player cringe and look for the source of the sound ("Is it a strangling sound? or is it something else?" the player wonders). A snake-like hiss causes the player to recoil and prepare for danger. Heavy breathing and wheezing in the darkness raises the player's curiosity. Screams and whispers evoke different responses.
Slow movements and villainous smiles attract attention, while ferocious charges and the fiery collapses of structures tell the player to get moving. Gargoyles and malevolent artworks invite the curious eye, but spikes and electric sparks encourage one to keep away.
Quick, bitter bursts of angry mutterings raise one's defenses against imminent danger. Slow, graceful, philosophical eloquence invites the player to be caressed by beauty within the darkness. Words can contain fire, or they can contain poison.
Enemies can hunt the player with brute determination, glaring hatred, and barking bloodlust. Or evil can be clothed in charm and elegance, pursuing the player patiently, teasingly, even affectionately. I'm talking about AI here, by the way. ;)
Toying with expectation
Building a particular, fearful expectation in a player and then revealing the source to be harmless can have two effects: (1) it can make the player paranoid, or (2) it can make the player skeptical. Either result can be good. The paranoid player's tension makes even harmless surprises eventful and raises the severity of the scare when he encounters truly fearful beings. The skeptical player's mistrust and constant questioning of her own expectations monopolizes her thoughts and makes her slower to respond to real danger, potentially giving the danger a brief advantage.
An exhaust hose can sound like wheezing. A flap of plastic can sound like a scurrying animal. Scraping metal can sound like screaming.
Doll parts can look real until you see the stuffing. Water and veils can distort things beneath/behind into startling images (such as faces). Crystal and glass can make things seem bigger or smaller.
Language can be ambiguous (intentionally and unintentionally). Personalities and cultures can include misunderstood tone-of-voice, expressions, and customs (a player could be frightened away from allies by such customs, like an assertive tone mistaken for aggression).
NPC actions (scripted or AI) can be purposefully erratic or nonsensical. Why did that young girl gleefully leap to her death? Why did that madman stop chasing me halfway down the hall and start staring wildly up at the ceiling?
Rewarding the steel will
One fun feature to put in a horror-survival game might be to award morale bonuses to either the player or enemy depending on the player's initial reaction. If a monster leaps out of the darkness and the player steps back in response (gives into fear), then morale is given to the monster (or taken from the player). If the player immediately steps forward to face the threat, then morale is awarded to the player's character.
Certainly, this is better suited for sporadic one-on-one encounters than in situations with multiple, simultaneous attacks. But there are probably ways to spin the idea as well.
Adrenalin
One of the body's main responses to fear is the pumping of adrenalin, which has three primary effects: (1) vastly increased strength, (2) numbing of pain, and (3) increased perception and reaction time. It's the first and last effect that make adrenalin particularly fit for being a game feature.
A rush of adrenalin slows one's perception of time. Slow-motion cameras work by taking more pictures-per-second than regular cameras. The increased number of photos allows the perceived scene to be stretched out into a slower progression. Adrenalin does the same thing to the brain. It triggers a flood of chemicals to be released in the brain, thereby allowing it to capture experiences in smaller increments... making those experiences seem longer, slower, so the person can react more quickly.
In a game, imagine if dropping below a particular level of health triggered slow-motion, as well as increased strength and speed. Such a feature would not only offer the player one last chance to avoid death, but would also make those dying moments more intense and more memorable.
In a college course I took on Gothic literature, I was taught that the readers of Victorian England distinguished between two types of fear: horror and terror.
Horror is the fear from which one flees. It is obvious, bold, and usually aggressive. The creature in the movie Alien is a horror, as most monsters are.
Terror is the fear that paralyzes. There is an element of mystery about it that makes the victim immobile with wonder and uncertainty. Ghosts tend to be terrors, as are cool-tempered murderers and vampires. Terror is often accompanied by what Freud labeled the uncanny... the feeling of something being strange but somehow familiar as well.
Which face to show?
In every aspect of a story's presentation, frightening objects are capable of being either horrifying or terrifying.
A harsh, guttural roar will cause a player to run from the sound. The muted gurgling sound of someone being strangled, on the other hand, will make the player cringe and look for the source of the sound ("Is it a strangling sound? or is it something else?" the player wonders). A snake-like hiss causes the player to recoil and prepare for danger. Heavy breathing and wheezing in the darkness raises the player's curiosity. Screams and whispers evoke different responses.
Slow movements and villainous smiles attract attention, while ferocious charges and the fiery collapses of structures tell the player to get moving. Gargoyles and malevolent artworks invite the curious eye, but spikes and electric sparks encourage one to keep away.
Quick, bitter bursts of angry mutterings raise one's defenses against imminent danger. Slow, graceful, philosophical eloquence invites the player to be caressed by beauty within the darkness. Words can contain fire, or they can contain poison.
Enemies can hunt the player with brute determination, glaring hatred, and barking bloodlust. Or evil can be clothed in charm and elegance, pursuing the player patiently, teasingly, even affectionately. I'm talking about AI here, by the way. ;)
Toying with expectation
Building a particular, fearful expectation in a player and then revealing the source to be harmless can have two effects: (1) it can make the player paranoid, or (2) it can make the player skeptical. Either result can be good. The paranoid player's tension makes even harmless surprises eventful and raises the severity of the scare when he encounters truly fearful beings. The skeptical player's mistrust and constant questioning of her own expectations monopolizes her thoughts and makes her slower to respond to real danger, potentially giving the danger a brief advantage.
An exhaust hose can sound like wheezing. A flap of plastic can sound like a scurrying animal. Scraping metal can sound like screaming.
Doll parts can look real until you see the stuffing. Water and veils can distort things beneath/behind into startling images (such as faces). Crystal and glass can make things seem bigger or smaller.
Language can be ambiguous (intentionally and unintentionally). Personalities and cultures can include misunderstood tone-of-voice, expressions, and customs (a player could be frightened away from allies by such customs, like an assertive tone mistaken for aggression).
NPC actions (scripted or AI) can be purposefully erratic or nonsensical. Why did that young girl gleefully leap to her death? Why did that madman stop chasing me halfway down the hall and start staring wildly up at the ceiling?
Rewarding the steel will
One fun feature to put in a horror-survival game might be to award morale bonuses to either the player or enemy depending on the player's initial reaction. If a monster leaps out of the darkness and the player steps back in response (gives into fear), then morale is given to the monster (or taken from the player). If the player immediately steps forward to face the threat, then morale is awarded to the player's character.
Certainly, this is better suited for sporadic one-on-one encounters than in situations with multiple, simultaneous attacks. But there are probably ways to spin the idea as well.
Adrenalin
One of the body's main responses to fear is the pumping of adrenalin, which has three primary effects: (1) vastly increased strength, (2) numbing of pain, and (3) increased perception and reaction time. It's the first and last effect that make adrenalin particularly fit for being a game feature.
A rush of adrenalin slows one's perception of time. Slow-motion cameras work by taking more pictures-per-second than regular cameras. The increased number of photos allows the perceived scene to be stretched out into a slower progression. Adrenalin does the same thing to the brain. It triggers a flood of chemicals to be released in the brain, thereby allowing it to capture experiences in smaller increments... making those experiences seem longer, slower, so the person can react more quickly.
In a game, imagine if dropping below a particular level of health triggered slow-motion, as well as increased strength and speed. Such a feature would not only offer the player one last chance to avoid death, but would also make those dying moments more intense and more memorable.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Press Start
Why?
Some traditions have oft-forgotten purposes. The "Press Start" screen is not one of those.
If I realize while watching the title screen that the game I've just booted up is not the disc I meant to play, then why the hell would I want to "Start" before I "Exit"? When I delete a save file, then alright... ask me, "Are you sure?". But don't ask me if I'm sure I want to play the damn game.
Just take me to Main Menu screen, already.
Some traditions have oft-forgotten purposes. The "Press Start" screen is not one of those.
If I realize while watching the title screen that the game I've just booted up is not the disc I meant to play, then why the hell would I want to "Start" before I "Exit"? When I delete a save file, then alright... ask me, "Are you sure?". But don't ask me if I'm sure I want to play the damn game.
Just take me to Main Menu screen, already.
Xbox Live: blatant mistakes
Let me preface this post by saying that Xbox Live is essentially an awesome service.
Is $15 per month greedy or perfectly reasonable? I have no idea. But I do know that being able to download demos and trailers of console games quickly and easily is phenomenal, the Arcade rocks (I have 12 XBLA games now), as does the ability to rent HD movies and TV shows digitally, and I don't mind paying something per month for what is generally a smooth and well-organized multiplayer experience (which includes online co-op for many games -- something not available to console gamers before). I have a lot of respect for Microsoft's game division and its online service.
That said, here are some mistakes that are blatantly obvious and inexcusable after being ignored for so long. I mentioned some of these problems on their official forums over a year ago. I know that some things aren't simple to fix when they seem so, but Microsoft has had so very long to notice these problems and address them.
Volume chaos
There's no universal volume level. Some trailers are louder than others; some games are louder than others. Why must I have to adjust my TV's volume between media so often?
A fundamental step in audio mastering is "normalization" -- increasing a song/track's basic volume to the maximum pre-distortion level, so that it plays at the same volume as everyone else's media and doesn't make listeners worry that the next thing they play might blast out their eardrums. This should be happening with everything on Xbox Live... either at the developers' end or at the host's (Microsoft's) end. Either way, it's Microsoft's responsibility to see that it happens.
No adjusting the queu
There's no user ability to adjust the order in which queued files will be downloaded. So if I'm already downloading a couple demos when I spot a trailer I'd like to watch, then I can't prioritize the trailer without cancelling the demos (and finding them again to download, hoping I won't see anything else I want to view or play before them).
Blockbuster Online, Fileplanet, Gamefly, and every other queu program I can think of includes a capacity for reorganizing downloads. Why not Xbox Live?
No 3-way private chat?
While playing Call of Duty 4, as many as 18 people are automatically included in the game's chat channel. So there's obviously no bandwidth barrier to allowing more than two people to speak in one channel. Yet only one person can be invited to a private chat channel. If I try to invite a second person, the first channel is closed and a new one is opened. Why?
Auto-logging the wrong profile
When I boot up my 360, I have it set to take me to the dashboard. It doesn't automatically log into my user profile, but instead waits for me to log in manually. And I don't mind that. What I do mind is that it automatically logs into the second/guest profile whenever I create one (when someone needs a profile to play with me offline, for example).
Let me repeat: it automatically logs into the guest profile, making me exit that profile before I can log into my own/main profile, but it doesn't automatically log into my main profile. Needless to say, this encourages me to delete my guest profile whenever one's not needed, so I have to recreate one whenever it is needed again.
A minor annoyance becomes a major annoyance when frequent.
Misleading advertisements
Before I bought NCAA Football '08, I checked Microsoft's official Xbox site to find out if it had co-op. Sure enough, the site listed co-op gameplay. What it failed to mention was that co-op in that football game, like so many games for the 360, is online only.
That's no minor qualification... I was more than a little disappointed when I got home with the game and learned that my family couldn't play with me, only against me. It effectively meant there is no co-op in that game for me, because the people who want to play with me don't own their own 360s, I don't know enough people with 360s to play a game with more than one other person at a time (two players online must play against one another), and -- like many gamers -- I don't find playing with strangers as fun as playing with friends and family. Catan is another game that surprised me by not having local multiplayer; only online multiplayer.
Co-op/multiplayer is "online only" or "requires 3-4 players" -- such a brief yet important description that fails to make it into so many of Microsoft's game summaries on the boxes and on their site. This is very basic information that shouldn't have to be found by scouring reviews somewhere. If it's not lying, then it's damn close.
Did I miss anything? Does anyone know a secret to opening 3-way private chat channels on Xbox Live?
Is $15 per month greedy or perfectly reasonable? I have no idea. But I do know that being able to download demos and trailers of console games quickly and easily is phenomenal, the Arcade rocks (I have 12 XBLA games now), as does the ability to rent HD movies and TV shows digitally, and I don't mind paying something per month for what is generally a smooth and well-organized multiplayer experience (which includes online co-op for many games -- something not available to console gamers before). I have a lot of respect for Microsoft's game division and its online service.
That said, here are some mistakes that are blatantly obvious and inexcusable after being ignored for so long. I mentioned some of these problems on their official forums over a year ago. I know that some things aren't simple to fix when they seem so, but Microsoft has had so very long to notice these problems and address them.
Volume chaos
There's no universal volume level. Some trailers are louder than others; some games are louder than others. Why must I have to adjust my TV's volume between media so often?
A fundamental step in audio mastering is "normalization" -- increasing a song/track's basic volume to the maximum pre-distortion level, so that it plays at the same volume as everyone else's media and doesn't make listeners worry that the next thing they play might blast out their eardrums. This should be happening with everything on Xbox Live... either at the developers' end or at the host's (Microsoft's) end. Either way, it's Microsoft's responsibility to see that it happens.
No adjusting the queu
There's no user ability to adjust the order in which queued files will be downloaded. So if I'm already downloading a couple demos when I spot a trailer I'd like to watch, then I can't prioritize the trailer without cancelling the demos (and finding them again to download, hoping I won't see anything else I want to view or play before them).
Blockbuster Online, Fileplanet, Gamefly, and every other queu program I can think of includes a capacity for reorganizing downloads. Why not Xbox Live?
No 3-way private chat?
While playing Call of Duty 4, as many as 18 people are automatically included in the game's chat channel. So there's obviously no bandwidth barrier to allowing more than two people to speak in one channel. Yet only one person can be invited to a private chat channel. If I try to invite a second person, the first channel is closed and a new one is opened. Why?
Auto-logging the wrong profile
When I boot up my 360, I have it set to take me to the dashboard. It doesn't automatically log into my user profile, but instead waits for me to log in manually. And I don't mind that. What I do mind is that it automatically logs into the second/guest profile whenever I create one (when someone needs a profile to play with me offline, for example).
Let me repeat: it automatically logs into the guest profile, making me exit that profile before I can log into my own/main profile, but it doesn't automatically log into my main profile. Needless to say, this encourages me to delete my guest profile whenever one's not needed, so I have to recreate one whenever it is needed again.
A minor annoyance becomes a major annoyance when frequent.
Misleading advertisements
Before I bought NCAA Football '08, I checked Microsoft's official Xbox site to find out if it had co-op. Sure enough, the site listed co-op gameplay. What it failed to mention was that co-op in that football game, like so many games for the 360, is online only.
That's no minor qualification... I was more than a little disappointed when I got home with the game and learned that my family couldn't play with me, only against me. It effectively meant there is no co-op in that game for me, because the people who want to play with me don't own their own 360s, I don't know enough people with 360s to play a game with more than one other person at a time (two players online must play against one another), and -- like many gamers -- I don't find playing with strangers as fun as playing with friends and family. Catan is another game that surprised me by not having local multiplayer; only online multiplayer.
Co-op/multiplayer is "online only" or "requires 3-4 players" -- such a brief yet important description that fails to make it into so many of Microsoft's game summaries on the boxes and on their site. This is very basic information that shouldn't have to be found by scouring reviews somewhere. If it's not lying, then it's damn close.
Did I miss anything? Does anyone know a secret to opening 3-way private chat channels on Xbox Live?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
