In games like Mass Effect and Deus Ex, the player can keep the game saved at many points. So it's possible to save before doing anything with a permanent effect (like choosing a skill or dialogue route) and returning to the save later to try a different route.
You can return in theory, anyway. In actuality, you've often progressed so far from the saved moment to the game's end that returning is a jarring experience. It's like watching a 2-hour film all the through, then being dropped back to the 30-minute mark to view a different course. Dropping back just 5 or 10 minutes, ala the ending of the movie Clue, is alright. But dropping back over an hour is begging for confusion and only a shallow immersion in events.
So, is there an alternative? Is there a way for a player to return to a much earlier point in his game experience without it feeling shallow or awkward?
TV series sometimes refresh their viewers memories with clips of the previous show. That helps avoid confusion, though it still requires that immersion be built up from scratch again. Would something like that work with a game? If skills or the complexity of the control scheme or item hoard changes significantly through the game, then the player would need to be refreshed on more than just the story.
Can much be done about this problem?
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
drama in games vs film
Over at Weekend Gamer, I posted some thoughts about permanent consequences in games. Toward the end, I got to thinking about how open gamers in general really are to negative emotions:
What do you think? Am I right that there are more barriers to including the full spectrum of emotions in games than just people respecting games as a dramatic medium, like films?
... . Designers like to talk about games that will make us sad and angry the way movies do, but gamers in general don't want that sort of stuff in games (at least, not in the sort of games we're already familiar with). Unsettling movies and unsettling games are fundamentally different. The saddened or angered movie viewer must only continue to watch further events. The saddened or angered gamer must continue to participate in events. Therefore, negative emotions require more patience from gamers than from movie-viewers.
What do you think? Am I right that there are more barriers to including the full spectrum of emotions in games than just people respecting games as a dramatic medium, like films?
mini-maps are shit
I love this quote from Peter Molyneux at the GDC: ""Mini-maps are shit. They're shit because you make these multimillion-dollar games, and people play them staring at these little dots."
The last game I had that problem with was Saints Row. Learning streets and landmarks takes time, while the mini-map provided instant knowledge, so I spent nearly all of my time looking at the mini-map while driving to missions and shops around the city. Whenever I didn't watch the mini-map, I was able to appreciate and enjoy the city itself. The mini-map effectively placed a big chunk of the game into shadow.
Of course, avoiding mini-maps can be difficult, as Molyneux's upcoming Fable 2 clearly demonstrates. I'm sure developing the AI to make that game's dog into a guide has been no easy feat. Still, any designer should at least begin with a determination to replace such an obviously flawed mechanism.
What other features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
For example, could the need for inventory screens, which remove players from focus on the gameworld, be largely negated by letting the player sort the desirability of equipment elements? In other words, could choosing equipment preferences be a simple one-shot decision at the beginning of the game, like character class? At character creation (revisable at any time thereafter), I prioritize damage-dealing (1), fire-wielding (2), cold-resistance (3) ----> blunt protection (18). And so the game automatically switches or does not switch out my character's gear based on how well an item's stats match up with my chosen priorities (damage-dealing over protection, fire damage over cold damage, etc). Is that clear at all? The question at the heart of all that is whether or not the need for inventory management can be minimized.
Another possible example is directing a player toward a major quest by designing minor quests to nudge the player in that direction. Depending on the quest, environmental indicators might also be possible. For example: if there's more ash and destruction to the west, then the bad guy probably went that way.
Anyway, back to my question: What features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
The last game I had that problem with was Saints Row. Learning streets and landmarks takes time, while the mini-map provided instant knowledge, so I spent nearly all of my time looking at the mini-map while driving to missions and shops around the city. Whenever I didn't watch the mini-map, I was able to appreciate and enjoy the city itself. The mini-map effectively placed a big chunk of the game into shadow.
Of course, avoiding mini-maps can be difficult, as Molyneux's upcoming Fable 2 clearly demonstrates. I'm sure developing the AI to make that game's dog into a guide has been no easy feat. Still, any designer should at least begin with a determination to replace such an obviously flawed mechanism.
What other features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
For example, could the need for inventory screens, which remove players from focus on the gameworld, be largely negated by letting the player sort the desirability of equipment elements? In other words, could choosing equipment preferences be a simple one-shot decision at the beginning of the game, like character class? At character creation (revisable at any time thereafter), I prioritize damage-dealing (1), fire-wielding (2), cold-resistance (3) ----> blunt protection (18). And so the game automatically switches or does not switch out my character's gear based on how well an item's stats match up with my chosen priorities (damage-dealing over protection, fire damage over cold damage, etc). Is that clear at all? The question at the heart of all that is whether or not the need for inventory management can be minimized.
Another possible example is directing a player toward a major quest by designing minor quests to nudge the player in that direction. Depending on the quest, environmental indicators might also be possible. For example: if there's more ash and destruction to the west, then the bad guy probably went that way.
Anyway, back to my question: What features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
know thy enemy
Sometime tomorrow, I'll pick up my pre-order of Culdcept Saga. One interesting feature of that board-card game is that you're able to see your opponent's cards. You know every card they draw and even get a glimpse of their entire hand each turn.
Some reviewers complained about this, because it definitely goes against expectations. But it's an interesting twist, I enjoy it in the CS demo, and I've been thinking how it might open up a new style of gameplay for many genres.
RTS games, for example. Imagine knowing at all times what your enemy is doing. What would it be like if the element of surprise was not present?
It's a little more common in mono-a-mono games. If an enemy spell takes 3 seconds to cast, the player might be able to recognize it in the first second and cast a 2-second counterspell. In Sid Meier's Pirates!, the same is possible in dueling.
Anyway, how do y'all feel about some games including complete transparency?
Some reviewers complained about this, because it definitely goes against expectations. But it's an interesting twist, I enjoy it in the CS demo, and I've been thinking how it might open up a new style of gameplay for many genres.
RTS games, for example. Imagine knowing at all times what your enemy is doing. What would it be like if the element of surprise was not present?
It's a little more common in mono-a-mono games. If an enemy spell takes 3 seconds to cast, the player might be able to recognize it in the first second and cast a 2-second counterspell. In Sid Meier's Pirates!, the same is possible in dueling.
Anyway, how do y'all feel about some games including complete transparency?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
game politics
This is a repost of my response to Julian's post here:
The reason so many politicians take wild stances against video games is because they're never offered a tempered, realistic view from anybody. Nearly everyone takes an extreme viewpoint, meaning that those politicians never hear real sense. Politicians will back off from condemning all games when gamers and game developers are willing to recognize that some games really do merit censorship.
The recent Fox News - Mass Effect debacle is a great example. I admire Geoff Keighley, and I think he showed patient restraint in that roundtable. But he said exactly what they knew he'd say. Regardless of whether Mass Effect was innocent of the network's charge or not, of course a game journalist was going to claim it was harmless, right? They might have actually listened to him if he said something to the effect of, "Look, I realize there are games out there that are sensationalist and problematic, but Mass Effect isn't one of those games."
It's the lack of a middle ground in such discussions that keeps everyone yelling at each other from the far sides of the field. If someone reasonable and well-placed like Geoff would just step into that territory, a civil and realistic discussion could begin between gamers and politicians.
The reason so many politicians take wild stances against video games is because they're never offered a tempered, realistic view from anybody. Nearly everyone takes an extreme viewpoint, meaning that those politicians never hear real sense. Politicians will back off from condemning all games when gamers and game developers are willing to recognize that some games really do merit censorship.
The recent Fox News - Mass Effect debacle is a great example. I admire Geoff Keighley, and I think he showed patient restraint in that roundtable. But he said exactly what they knew he'd say. Regardless of whether Mass Effect was innocent of the network's charge or not, of course a game journalist was going to claim it was harmless, right? They might have actually listened to him if he said something to the effect of, "Look, I realize there are games out there that are sensationalist and problematic, but Mass Effect isn't one of those games."
It's the lack of a middle ground in such discussions that keeps everyone yelling at each other from the far sides of the field. If someone reasonable and well-placed like Geoff would just step into that territory, a civil and realistic discussion could begin between gamers and politicians.
Monday, January 28, 2008
the future of podcasting
Brent posted show #100 of VirginWorlds. Congratulations, Brent!
During the show, he asked about the future of podcasting. I have a couple thoughts on that.
First, I agree with Craig that video podcasting will become more common, and some audiences will prefer that while others will prefer the audio podcasts. Audio podcasts allow the listener to browse the internet or do something else on his computer while listening. That's great for many, but some of us can't pay close attention to the podcast dialogue if we're doing other things. And, of course, video podcasts can offer elements which audio podcasts cannot.
Second, I bet changes in technology will be a major factor in the growth and nature of podcasting. This is only the beginning.
The explosion of wireless internet applications we're seeing now will continue over the next five or ten years. In the foreseeable future, though i'm not sure when, automobiles will regularly include advanced, built-in mp3 players and comprehensive web browsers with satellite internet connectivity. First, we'll see more people using USB drives and such to transfer files quickly and easily between their home computers and their cars. Next, we'll see people downloading shows like VirginWorlds directly to their vehicles. Those vehicle media interfaces will even have the equivalent of RSS feeds, automatically loading your favorite shows to your car's hard drive whenever a new episode is released.
Podcasts are already common and employed by mainstream media networks (and not just the big gaming networks). But in ten years... look out!
By the way, Brent and Darren... If you think podcasts are difficult to put together now, just wait until listening to them in cars becomes the norm and panning becomes more important with the 4+ speakers. =P
During the show, he asked about the future of podcasting. I have a couple thoughts on that.
First, I agree with Craig that video podcasting will become more common, and some audiences will prefer that while others will prefer the audio podcasts. Audio podcasts allow the listener to browse the internet or do something else on his computer while listening. That's great for many, but some of us can't pay close attention to the podcast dialogue if we're doing other things. And, of course, video podcasts can offer elements which audio podcasts cannot.
Second, I bet changes in technology will be a major factor in the growth and nature of podcasting. This is only the beginning.
The explosion of wireless internet applications we're seeing now will continue over the next five or ten years. In the foreseeable future, though i'm not sure when, automobiles will regularly include advanced, built-in mp3 players and comprehensive web browsers with satellite internet connectivity. First, we'll see more people using USB drives and such to transfer files quickly and easily between their home computers and their cars. Next, we'll see people downloading shows like VirginWorlds directly to their vehicles. Those vehicle media interfaces will even have the equivalent of RSS feeds, automatically loading your favorite shows to your car's hard drive whenever a new episode is released.
Podcasts are already common and employed by mainstream media networks (and not just the big gaming networks). But in ten years... look out!
By the way, Brent and Darren... If you think podcasts are difficult to put together now, just wait until listening to them in cars becomes the norm and panning becomes more important with the 4+ speakers. =P
Friday, January 25, 2008
action games and football
MACRO
In football, if you lose a game, that usually doesn't prevent you from progressing to the next game (the next level). Your record stays with you, but it only determines whether or not you make it to the playoffs (extra levels). Football allows the player to experience nearly all content regardless of performance.
That seems to be a model that could be transferred to FPS games and Action RPGs.
Perform poorly against most of the foes of one level, and you can still progress to the next level. Doing well in most levels will unlock some extra areas, while winning all levels will unlock an epic encounter or something similar, but the game generally moves forward regardless. And, like a football season, level order is not static. The player might face the swamp level first, last, or anywhere in between.
MICRO
Applying this concept of "progression independent of achievement" seems easy enough on the macro level, but I wonder if it could also be applied to individual encounters.
In (American) football, if countless plays in a game go badly, that doesn't prevent you from progressing to the next play (the next encounter). Winning plays affects the circumstances of future plays (such as field position) and the role one must take in the next play (offense/defense), but poor achievement does not negate progression entirely.
The last quality is what might be difficult to translate into games other than turn-based games. How do you encourage skillful play of individual encounters without punishing failure by ending progression?
NCAA Football '08 does this largely through a system of momentum. Perform poorly and your enemy gets the momentum, making progression harder but still inevitable (not merely possible). This system increases the opponent(s)' attributes and skills -- something easily translatable to other genres.
Like field position in football, it would be great to see the FPS/RPG player's actions in individual encounters affect the setting of the next encounter. An enemy might be blocking a slowly closing pathway; meaning the player can sneak past the enemy or fight through (not necessarily killing) to the opening, but must otherwise take an alternate route. Or actions in one encounter might affect the availability of environmental objects in other encounters.
Anyway, just the random thoughts of the day.
In football, if you lose a game, that usually doesn't prevent you from progressing to the next game (the next level). Your record stays with you, but it only determines whether or not you make it to the playoffs (extra levels). Football allows the player to experience nearly all content regardless of performance.
That seems to be a model that could be transferred to FPS games and Action RPGs.
Perform poorly against most of the foes of one level, and you can still progress to the next level. Doing well in most levels will unlock some extra areas, while winning all levels will unlock an epic encounter or something similar, but the game generally moves forward regardless. And, like a football season, level order is not static. The player might face the swamp level first, last, or anywhere in between.
MICRO
Applying this concept of "progression independent of achievement" seems easy enough on the macro level, but I wonder if it could also be applied to individual encounters.
In (American) football, if countless plays in a game go badly, that doesn't prevent you from progressing to the next play (the next encounter). Winning plays affects the circumstances of future plays (such as field position) and the role one must take in the next play (offense/defense), but poor achievement does not negate progression entirely.
The last quality is what might be difficult to translate into games other than turn-based games. How do you encourage skillful play of individual encounters without punishing failure by ending progression?
NCAA Football '08 does this largely through a system of momentum. Perform poorly and your enemy gets the momentum, making progression harder but still inevitable (not merely possible). This system increases the opponent(s)' attributes and skills -- something easily translatable to other genres.
Like field position in football, it would be great to see the FPS/RPG player's actions in individual encounters affect the setting of the next encounter. An enemy might be blocking a slowly closing pathway; meaning the player can sneak past the enemy or fight through (not necessarily killing) to the opening, but must otherwise take an alternate route. Or actions in one encounter might affect the availability of environmental objects in other encounters.
Anyway, just the random thoughts of the day.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Usage-based internet fees and online gaming
That's right, Time Warner is testing the possibility of charging internet users for service based on individual bandwidth consumption. And listen to this:
If most internet users would save money from this new model and like it, and online gamers do fall into that small percentage, then online gaming's runaway growth could be slowed to crawl. Not only MMOs, but online console services could suffer.
I tend to avoid predictions of doom and gloom. Disasters do happen, but they're rare. But is there good reason to be afraid with this? It seems developers and gamers alike should keep an eye on this one.
Sorry about the long hiatus. I've just felt like I have nothing to say lately. Hopefully, I'll be posting regularly again soon.
The company believes the billing system will impact only heavy users, who account for around 5 percent of all customers but typically use more than half of the total network bandwidth, according to a company spokesman.Do online gamers fall into that 5 percent?
If most internet users would save money from this new model and like it, and online gamers do fall into that small percentage, then online gaming's runaway growth could be slowed to crawl. Not only MMOs, but online console services could suffer.
I tend to avoid predictions of doom and gloom. Disasters do happen, but they're rare. But is there good reason to be afraid with this? It seems developers and gamers alike should keep an eye on this one.
Sorry about the long hiatus. I've just felt like I have nothing to say lately. Hopefully, I'll be posting regularly again soon.
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
strategy-only football
College football is finally over. I wish they would end the season on New Year's, like they used to do. Anyway, it's good to see an SEC team take the title once again. I was born in Louisiana, so LSU's probably my second favorite, after Bama (family tradition - a lot of my family's from the Mobile-Daphne area).
Over the past few days, I've wondered why I've never seen a strategy-only football game before. It might exist, but I've never heard of one. By strategy-only, I mean a video game in which you play as the coaching staff and have no direct control of the action.
Every football fan is an armchair quarterback. We love to criticize play-calls and suggest what should have been done. But not every football fan is an action gamer. Some didn't grow up with video games and don't have the training with console controls to play Madden '08. Others could play such action games, but prefer player-paced games. And still others are only interested in strategy.
So the absence of a football video game that is based entirely around coaching seems glaring to me. For the player to watch the action unfold in a realistic manner requires some deep AI, so perhaps we're only now ready for that sort of game. But, regardless of whether or not such a game could have been adequately presented in the past, EA or someone else needs to hop on this opportunity.
I know plenty of non-gamers who would quickly become gaming addicts if they could play Armchair Quarterback '09. =)
Over the past few days, I've wondered why I've never seen a strategy-only football game before. It might exist, but I've never heard of one. By strategy-only, I mean a video game in which you play as the coaching staff and have no direct control of the action.
Every football fan is an armchair quarterback. We love to criticize play-calls and suggest what should have been done. But not every football fan is an action gamer. Some didn't grow up with video games and don't have the training with console controls to play Madden '08. Others could play such action games, but prefer player-paced games. And still others are only interested in strategy.
So the absence of a football video game that is based entirely around coaching seems glaring to me. For the player to watch the action unfold in a realistic manner requires some deep AI, so perhaps we're only now ready for that sort of game. But, regardless of whether or not such a game could have been adequately presented in the past, EA or someone else needs to hop on this opportunity.
I know plenty of non-gamers who would quickly become gaming addicts if they could play Armchair Quarterback '09. =)
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
smack! (restart): training-based games
I hope y'all's Christmas was awesome.
I'll eventually get back to Friday's topic, but I want to throw this out there instead today. Over at the CrosuS forums, RedOctober and I disagreed about the worth of a particular game. At one point in the discussion, I had this to say:
So my question now is: Is that sort of gameplay still viable? Are games like Ghosts 'n' Goblins, based on trial-and-error and near-perfect performance to complete linear adventures, relics of the past? Or will that sort of gameplay continue to have a niche in the industry beyond the generation of gamers who grew up with it?
I'll eventually get back to Friday's topic, but I want to throw this out there instead today. Over at the CrosuS forums, RedOctober and I disagreed about the worth of a particular game. At one point in the discussion, I had this to say:
"You're wrong, though, if you think the only reason gamers like me don't enjoy games like this is difficulty. It's not about it being hard, but how it is hard. I'm not an achievement-oriented gamer. I focus much more on the moment than the goal during gameplay. Accomplishing something doesn't get me as excited as doing something really cool and fresh. So I don't mind games being hard, but I expect them to be hard in dynamic and engaging ways.
When an FPS game offers a high diffulty mode by making the AI smarter or limiting ammo, that's fun for gamers like me. But the difficulty in Exolon DX is hardly dynamic, and restarting from the beginning over and over to get a little further is a type of gameplay that lost its appeal for me when games became capable of more. When I was a kid, I loved games like Contra and Ghosts 'n' Goblins, but games have evolved and I have different expectations now. "
So my question now is: Is that sort of gameplay still viable? Are games like Ghosts 'n' Goblins, based on trial-and-error and near-perfect performance to complete linear adventures, relics of the past? Or will that sort of gameplay continue to have a niche in the industry beyond the generation of gamers who grew up with it?
Friday, December 21, 2007
Games can't be timeless?
Josh Pankratz, over at Ripten, says games will never be timeless.
I was hoping to respond to that article today, but my response is taking more time than I have available. It's a complicated issue that demands a lot of thought... I've been going back and forth on my view for the past couple hours. So I'm just going to point you to the article today, perhaps here some of your thoughts, then post my response sometime tomorrow.
I will get back into a daily habit of posting soon, I promise!
I was hoping to respond to that article today, but my response is taking more time than I have available. It's a complicated issue that demands a lot of thought... I've been going back and forth on my view for the past couple hours. So I'm just going to point you to the article today, perhaps here some of your thoughts, then post my response sometime tomorrow.
I will get back into a daily habit of posting soon, I promise!
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Favorite MMOs
Following in the footsteps of Cameron, who got the idea from F13 (which I don't follow regularly either), here's a list of my favorite MMOs. Only six, because these are all I care to mention.
1. Star Wars: Galaxies -- People trash it all the time, but, in its original form, SWG was a phenomenal game. It did many things wrong, but it pushed the genre forward as well (at least, it would have, if anyone had bothered to follow).
Visual customization was extensive and mattered. NPCs and creatures were active when not engaged in combat. The world felt alive. Characters had limited (mortal) health and strength, making them feel like true members of the gameworld, rather than outsiders who could crush NPCs on a whim and had no relation to them. It also resulted in tremendous diversity in character apparel and helped take the focus off optimization. The crafting system allowed more customization and experimentation than anything other to date. The taming of wild creatures opened up a whole new avenue of exploration. The Galactic Civil War was fun and evident everywhere, even emerging in the occasional NPC-vs-NPC battle which players could walk by or join as they please. There were many factions. There was true wilderness and a feeling of distance.
It was easily my most immersive MMO experience. I'm sure that was at least partially due to the fact that it was Star Wars.
2. Everquest -- My first MMO experience and, therefore, my longest (almost a year). Newbie content and advanced content were not initially separated by hard barriers. Level 10 and level 40 creatures often existed in the same zone, resulting in a real sense of danger and anticipation. Players were often surprised by encounters they didn't expect, which are generally more memorable than predictable encounters. The "DING!" acted as a bold celebration whenever the player progressed, cheering the player on. The world was huge and offered long exploration.
3. Everquest 2 -- A cinematic experience that I plan on returning to next time I upgrade my computer. Put the graphics on High, turn on the Letterbox, tap F10 to turn off the HUD, and the immersion is wonderful. SOE did a great job on the animations, which make the combat infinitely more interesting. Skills can be upgraded through exploration (loot drops). On High graphics, some creatures are camouflaged (like lions in the tall grass of the Commonlands). The best quests I've ever seen in an MMO were in EQ2, though they certainly didn't represent the majority of EQ2 quests. The world was more rigidly structured than SWG's, but still alive with non-combat activity.
4. World of Warcraft -- Finally, a decent combat pace in an MMO. The warrior's bloodlust, in particular, was a great idea, since it encourages players to move quickly between encounters. The art is imaginative and polished, and the graphics are good while also easy on computers. Some skill choice is available (though I was hugely disappointed that they didn't incorporate the full freedom of Diablo 2's system).
5. City of Heroes -- Being able to customize my character visually right away was great. More impressive were the skill customizations. Two players could have the same skill but have it tweaked different (greater power, faster retime, greater accuracy, etc). Chasing down fleeing in this game actually felt fun, since it often involved leaping over obstacles, climbing ladders, and pushing past civilians. Falling did damage to enemies and players alike, so it could be used tactically during combat on rooftops.
6. Shadowbane -- Originally, I was going to list my top five MMOs, but I have to list Shadowbane. The runestone system in character customization was a great idea. The skill system allowed for weapon specialization without reversal being impossible. It was my first PvP MMO and, while I wasn't interested very long, it provided some memorable PvP experiences. The newspaper or journal of happenings in the world and maps were good ideas.
Honestly, I'm more into single-player games and co-op games these days, but I'm looking forward to trying The Agency and Warhammer Online. Sadly, Trials of Ascension never left development and Darkfall doesn't grab my eye like it used to.
1. Star Wars: Galaxies -- People trash it all the time, but, in its original form, SWG was a phenomenal game. It did many things wrong, but it pushed the genre forward as well (at least, it would have, if anyone had bothered to follow).
Visual customization was extensive and mattered. NPCs and creatures were active when not engaged in combat. The world felt alive. Characters had limited (mortal) health and strength, making them feel like true members of the gameworld, rather than outsiders who could crush NPCs on a whim and had no relation to them. It also resulted in tremendous diversity in character apparel and helped take the focus off optimization. The crafting system allowed more customization and experimentation than anything other to date. The taming of wild creatures opened up a whole new avenue of exploration. The Galactic Civil War was fun and evident everywhere, even emerging in the occasional NPC-vs-NPC battle which players could walk by or join as they please. There were many factions. There was true wilderness and a feeling of distance.
It was easily my most immersive MMO experience. I'm sure that was at least partially due to the fact that it was Star Wars.
2. Everquest -- My first MMO experience and, therefore, my longest (almost a year). Newbie content and advanced content were not initially separated by hard barriers. Level 10 and level 40 creatures often existed in the same zone, resulting in a real sense of danger and anticipation. Players were often surprised by encounters they didn't expect, which are generally more memorable than predictable encounters. The "DING!" acted as a bold celebration whenever the player progressed, cheering the player on. The world was huge and offered long exploration.
3. Everquest 2 -- A cinematic experience that I plan on returning to next time I upgrade my computer. Put the graphics on High, turn on the Letterbox, tap F10 to turn off the HUD, and the immersion is wonderful. SOE did a great job on the animations, which make the combat infinitely more interesting. Skills can be upgraded through exploration (loot drops). On High graphics, some creatures are camouflaged (like lions in the tall grass of the Commonlands). The best quests I've ever seen in an MMO were in EQ2, though they certainly didn't represent the majority of EQ2 quests. The world was more rigidly structured than SWG's, but still alive with non-combat activity.
4. World of Warcraft -- Finally, a decent combat pace in an MMO. The warrior's bloodlust, in particular, was a great idea, since it encourages players to move quickly between encounters. The art is imaginative and polished, and the graphics are good while also easy on computers. Some skill choice is available (though I was hugely disappointed that they didn't incorporate the full freedom of Diablo 2's system).
5. City of Heroes -- Being able to customize my character visually right away was great. More impressive were the skill customizations. Two players could have the same skill but have it tweaked different (greater power, faster retime, greater accuracy, etc). Chasing down fleeing in this game actually felt fun, since it often involved leaping over obstacles, climbing ladders, and pushing past civilians. Falling did damage to enemies and players alike, so it could be used tactically during combat on rooftops.
6. Shadowbane -- Originally, I was going to list my top five MMOs, but I have to list Shadowbane. The runestone system in character customization was a great idea. The skill system allowed for weapon specialization without reversal being impossible. It was my first PvP MMO and, while I wasn't interested very long, it provided some memorable PvP experiences. The newspaper or journal of happenings in the world and maps were good ideas.
Honestly, I'm more into single-player games and co-op games these days, but I'm looking forward to trying The Agency and Warhammer Online. Sadly, Trials of Ascension never left development and Darkfall doesn't grab my eye like it used to.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Leave the game alone!
Yet another poll for you. As I said here:
"As a gamer, I’ve always been irritated by patches. Patches for other forms of software are generally limited to bug fixes, optimization, and feature additions. Game patches, on the other hand, usually make significant changes to original gameplay. ..."
How I feel about patches makes little difference if most online gamers are just fine with them, I suppose. Do we have any idea what the majority thinks? Do changes to original gameplay (generally, not just the nerfs to your favorite class) bother you?
It's a certainty that a developer's game will not be exactly how he or she wants it to be at release. Developers of other industries are willing to accept that and treat their products as finished, if only basic (meaning additions are possible). Why is it different with games?
Aside from the problems mentioned in that WTG article, changing important gameplay features after release opens players' eyes to all the game's flaws. It makes gamers endlessly critical of published designs and diminishes their enjoyment of the games.
Some developers talk as if an MMO is some great democracy in which community participation in design takes gameplay to new levels. But that hasn't happened, has it? MMOs today haven't progressed far beyond what they were a decade ago. Most individual MMOs face the same problems years after release that they faced initially, like balancing issues. And if so many other industries can improve just through internal research and occasional polling of outsiders, why can't game developers do the same?
Should original gameplay generally remain untouched after released, excepting for bugs and polish?
"As a gamer, I’ve always been irritated by patches. Patches for other forms of software are generally limited to bug fixes, optimization, and feature additions. Game patches, on the other hand, usually make significant changes to original gameplay. ..."
How I feel about patches makes little difference if most online gamers are just fine with them, I suppose. Do we have any idea what the majority thinks? Do changes to original gameplay (generally, not just the nerfs to your favorite class) bother you?
It's a certainty that a developer's game will not be exactly how he or she wants it to be at release. Developers of other industries are willing to accept that and treat their products as finished, if only basic (meaning additions are possible). Why is it different with games?
Aside from the problems mentioned in that WTG article, changing important gameplay features after release opens players' eyes to all the game's flaws. It makes gamers endlessly critical of published designs and diminishes their enjoyment of the games.
Some developers talk as if an MMO is some great democracy in which community participation in design takes gameplay to new levels. But that hasn't happened, has it? MMOs today haven't progressed far beyond what they were a decade ago. Most individual MMOs face the same problems years after release that they faced initially, like balancing issues. And if so many other industries can improve just through internal research and occasional polling of outsiders, why can't game developers do the same?
Should original gameplay generally remain untouched after released, excepting for bugs and polish?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Are peripheral tools common?
Finally, I'm posting again! Sorry about the long hiatus. That's why I try to post everyday... if I give myself one free day, it quickly turns into two, then three, then a week, and so on.
I've always played games as is -- no mods, no minor tweaks, no tools running in the background. You know... gaming as God intended. ;)
Yet the use of those extra tools, alternate UI, and such seems pretty common.
So now I'm wondering just how common. Am I the exception? Do most PC gamers use such things these days? Or is it still mainly the tech-savvy gamers and online gaming veterans who seek to augment their gameplay?
I've always played games as is -- no mods, no minor tweaks, no tools running in the background. You know... gaming as God intended. ;)
Yet the use of those extra tools, alternate UI, and such seems pretty common.
So now I'm wondering just how common. Am I the exception? Do most PC gamers use such things these days? Or is it still mainly the tech-savvy gamers and online gaming veterans who seek to augment their gameplay?
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Babies and badges
Hey all. My brother and his wife just had their first child, my first nephew, and I'm tired. I'm also behind on my work, so I'm busy with that. So that's why I didn't blog yesterday and probably won't today either.
But I did post a new article today over at Write the Game about rewarding good behavior (good beta feedback, forum behavior, gameplay decisions, etc).
That site's just getting off the ground, really, so I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a look... and, if you like what you read, perhaps pass it on. I'm writing for WTG a couple times per week, and there are some other good writers there.
Hopefully, I'll be back in the swing of things by tomorrow. I've already got some articles started... finishing them is the chore. Anyway, thanks for reading.
But I did post a new article today over at Write the Game about rewarding good behavior (good beta feedback, forum behavior, gameplay decisions, etc).
That site's just getting off the ground, really, so I'd appreciate it if you'd give it a look... and, if you like what you read, perhaps pass it on. I'm writing for WTG a couple times per week, and there are some other good writers there.
Hopefully, I'll be back in the swing of things by tomorrow. I've already got some articles started... finishing them is the chore. Anyway, thanks for reading.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Sales figures for games?
Does anyone know of a site that consolidates sales figures for all video games?
There are times when I'd really like to know how many copies a particular game sold or how game sales compare.
There are times when I'd really like to know how many copies a particular game sold or how game sales compare.
Monday, December 10, 2007
SUWT #15
Darren's Shut Up, We're Talking #15 podcast is up. Here's my ridiculously long response.
STAR TREK ONLINE
I won't predict success or failure, but here's some stuff I would consider if I was making a Star Trek MMO.
John mentioned the "depth" of the Star Trek IP. Star Trek was entertaining, but it was also a particularly intellectual TV show; especially the original series. Nearly every episode explored a serious philosophical question. Any faithful Star Trek game would also include serious philosophical inquiries. I agree that Bioware might be a good match for Star Trek, because I think they would take that philosophical aspect seriously and ensure character choices are the heart of gameplay.
Star Trek is also about diplomacy and competing empires. Humans, Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, and all the rest might be allies from time to time, but they all represent nations trying to balance international community with self-interests. A game should include a depthful study of complex politics.
Non-lethal combat was also an important aspect of the TV series, though there was certainly plenty of lethal combat as well. I would avoid the traditional die-and-respawn mechanic that MMOs normally use. A "WoW in space" would be utterly disrespectful to the IP.
Human frailty is pivotal in Star Trek. It's ok for the player's character to ridiculously lucky and skillful, but even the strongest, smartest, and most resourceful characters in the TV series got captured and defeated time and time again. They all genuinely feared for their lives and the lives of others. They all feared pain. A game should ensure that player-characters are not demi-gods compared to NPCs. It should ensure that players are always under the command of someone and disobeying that command matters (Kirk might have been a rebel, but he was punished for it more than once). It should ensure that players experience defeat in more ways than having to respawn. The game doesn' thave to be hard, but the world should feel more realistic than most MMO worlds.
LOVING THE GRIND
Nobody likes the grind. Nobody.
Grinding isn't just a series of repetitive actions or redundant scenarios. A series of actions only becomes a grind when it's boring -- when the player would rather skip content than experience it, but can't skip it.
Darren said he's happy "as long as I can see my next goal", but that's settling for weak content. No gamer should have to sludge past boring content to reach the fun. Because of different playstyles and personal interests, most games have at least some content that any given gamer would prefer to skip. But if most gamers are only focusing on the goal most of the time, that game is more about Pavlovian manipulation than fun.
The gameplay in Tetris is repetitive, but it's still fun. Halo is repetitive, but still fun. Repetition isn't the problem.
OH, AND MASS EFFECT...
I won't apologize! ;)
I haven't been able to put much more time into the game yet, but I have been considering why I've been so much more critical of Mass Effect than anybody else. Honestly, it bothers me that nobody has agreed with my early impression of the game more than partially, so I'm trying to understand what might be at the root of that disagreement. These are the possible reasons I've come up with so far:
I haven't been tackling the main questline.
I've been focusing on exploring the side missions and planets. Most folks who have greatly enjoyed Mass Effect seem to have focused on the main storyline. They also seem more willing to accept it for what it is, rather than what it was hyped to be -- meaning that it seems to be a far more linear game than advertised. It seems to be about the story and little else. I keep saying "seems to be" because I'm still basing all of this on the first four or five hours of gameplay (which, as I always say, matter immensely for any game).
Only one planet in each solar system (plus the occasional ship) is open to exploration; the rest are just textual references. And on each of those exploreable planets is only one or two depthful encounters. There might be five blips on the map, but four of them just represent resource nodes or cut-and-paste wreckage that act as 5-second mini-games (hit 'X' when it tells you to, 'Y' when it tells you to, etc. -- hardly the sort of thing I'd expect in a Bioware game, and certainly not engaging). Exploration isn't rewarded with quality content, but with cookie-cutter garbage.
Some other reviewer verified my (early) experience that every planet is basically just the same mountains and plains with a different texture, different gravity, and different weather. Perhaps that's more realistic, but it certainly isn't fun.
I'm an action-oriented gamer
I fully expected Mass Effect, being a Bioware game, to focus on a linear main-narrative. That's no surprise. What is a surprise is how little else there is to the game. Neverwinter Nights is among my favorite games of all time, and I've played KOTOR and Baldur's Gate as well. The stories were not the only engaging aspects of those games; the action was fun, too.
First, look at skill-progression. After doing great jobs on Neverwinter Nights and KOTOR, I didn't expect Bioware to fall into a classic mistake of skill design: concentrating on stat-tweaks that are invisible to the player. A 3% bonus to accuracy? That's worth a skill point? Are you kidding me? I don't care what sort of audience a game is aimed at... if the player can't feel the effect of a skill choice, that choice does not matter.
As others have pointed out, the companion A.I. is pretty terrible. Micro-management is an absolute necessity, because my NPC companions are morons who die within seconds. Once, I ordered them to just stay behind and twiddle their thumbs while I kill all the enemies, because they got me killed the first time I tried that encounter.
Stat-based gun combat is tricky to implement. In Hellgate: London, the player witnesses every missile, miss, and contact. Flagship did a far better job with it. In Mass Effect, the primary feedback is the enemy's healthbar, and I feel like I'm firing blanks half the time. The cinematic presentation of combat is definitely great, but the combat itself is mediocre at best.
I'm more critical of hyped stuff
Whenever anything, game or otherwise, is popularly touted as the best invention since sliced bread, I'm skeptical. I have no doubt that I'm being more critical of Mass Effect than I would be of something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Fight Night: Round 3. I was also exceptionally critical of Bioshock and Halo 3 (I own the latter and like it; I plan on trying the full version of Bioshock soon).
However, I'm also obsessively self-critical and try very hard to be completely honest with myself, so I don't use words like "mediocre" and "alright" about a game everybody and his mother seems to love until I'm certain there's solid logic behind those claims. The stuff I say isn't just nitpicking -- I'm interested in the overall gameplay and want to enjoy the game -- but I'm reluctant to give any game five stars, if you know what I mean.
I'm a dumb Aspie
The obsessive self-honesty is just one symptom of Asperger Syndrome, a condition that describes the strange way my brain developed. Another symptom is extreme difficulty noticing and understanding body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and non-literal speech (like sarcasm; I love using it, but I rarely catch it when others use it).
Much of the hoopla surrounding Mass Effect as an innovative game is its admirable progress with exactly those aspects of language. So, even though I notice and respect what Bioware has done there, it makes perfect sense that it would have less of an effect on my overall gameplay impression than it would have on players within the normal range of non-verbal, social intelligence.
Anyway, another interesting SUWT podcast. =)
STAR TREK ONLINE
I won't predict success or failure, but here's some stuff I would consider if I was making a Star Trek MMO.
John mentioned the "depth" of the Star Trek IP. Star Trek was entertaining, but it was also a particularly intellectual TV show; especially the original series. Nearly every episode explored a serious philosophical question. Any faithful Star Trek game would also include serious philosophical inquiries. I agree that Bioware might be a good match for Star Trek, because I think they would take that philosophical aspect seriously and ensure character choices are the heart of gameplay.
Star Trek is also about diplomacy and competing empires. Humans, Romulans, Klingons, Cardassians, and all the rest might be allies from time to time, but they all represent nations trying to balance international community with self-interests. A game should include a depthful study of complex politics.
Non-lethal combat was also an important aspect of the TV series, though there was certainly plenty of lethal combat as well. I would avoid the traditional die-and-respawn mechanic that MMOs normally use. A "WoW in space" would be utterly disrespectful to the IP.
Human frailty is pivotal in Star Trek. It's ok for the player's character to ridiculously lucky and skillful, but even the strongest, smartest, and most resourceful characters in the TV series got captured and defeated time and time again. They all genuinely feared for their lives and the lives of others. They all feared pain. A game should ensure that player-characters are not demi-gods compared to NPCs. It should ensure that players are always under the command of someone and disobeying that command matters (Kirk might have been a rebel, but he was punished for it more than once). It should ensure that players experience defeat in more ways than having to respawn. The game doesn' thave to be hard, but the world should feel more realistic than most MMO worlds.
LOVING THE GRIND
Nobody likes the grind. Nobody.
Grinding isn't just a series of repetitive actions or redundant scenarios. A series of actions only becomes a grind when it's boring -- when the player would rather skip content than experience it, but can't skip it.
Darren said he's happy "as long as I can see my next goal", but that's settling for weak content. No gamer should have to sludge past boring content to reach the fun. Because of different playstyles and personal interests, most games have at least some content that any given gamer would prefer to skip. But if most gamers are only focusing on the goal most of the time, that game is more about Pavlovian manipulation than fun.
The gameplay in Tetris is repetitive, but it's still fun. Halo is repetitive, but still fun. Repetition isn't the problem.
OH, AND MASS EFFECT...
I won't apologize! ;)
I haven't been able to put much more time into the game yet, but I have been considering why I've been so much more critical of Mass Effect than anybody else. Honestly, it bothers me that nobody has agreed with my early impression of the game more than partially, so I'm trying to understand what might be at the root of that disagreement. These are the possible reasons I've come up with so far:
I haven't been tackling the main questline.
I've been focusing on exploring the side missions and planets. Most folks who have greatly enjoyed Mass Effect seem to have focused on the main storyline. They also seem more willing to accept it for what it is, rather than what it was hyped to be -- meaning that it seems to be a far more linear game than advertised. It seems to be about the story and little else. I keep saying "seems to be" because I'm still basing all of this on the first four or five hours of gameplay (which, as I always say, matter immensely for any game).
Only one planet in each solar system (plus the occasional ship) is open to exploration; the rest are just textual references. And on each of those exploreable planets is only one or two depthful encounters. There might be five blips on the map, but four of them just represent resource nodes or cut-and-paste wreckage that act as 5-second mini-games (hit 'X' when it tells you to, 'Y' when it tells you to, etc. -- hardly the sort of thing I'd expect in a Bioware game, and certainly not engaging). Exploration isn't rewarded with quality content, but with cookie-cutter garbage.
Some other reviewer verified my (early) experience that every planet is basically just the same mountains and plains with a different texture, different gravity, and different weather. Perhaps that's more realistic, but it certainly isn't fun.
I'm an action-oriented gamer
I fully expected Mass Effect, being a Bioware game, to focus on a linear main-narrative. That's no surprise. What is a surprise is how little else there is to the game. Neverwinter Nights is among my favorite games of all time, and I've played KOTOR and Baldur's Gate as well. The stories were not the only engaging aspects of those games; the action was fun, too.
First, look at skill-progression. After doing great jobs on Neverwinter Nights and KOTOR, I didn't expect Bioware to fall into a classic mistake of skill design: concentrating on stat-tweaks that are invisible to the player. A 3% bonus to accuracy? That's worth a skill point? Are you kidding me? I don't care what sort of audience a game is aimed at... if the player can't feel the effect of a skill choice, that choice does not matter.
As others have pointed out, the companion A.I. is pretty terrible. Micro-management is an absolute necessity, because my NPC companions are morons who die within seconds. Once, I ordered them to just stay behind and twiddle their thumbs while I kill all the enemies, because they got me killed the first time I tried that encounter.
Stat-based gun combat is tricky to implement. In Hellgate: London, the player witnesses every missile, miss, and contact. Flagship did a far better job with it. In Mass Effect, the primary feedback is the enemy's healthbar, and I feel like I'm firing blanks half the time. The cinematic presentation of combat is definitely great, but the combat itself is mediocre at best.
I'm more critical of hyped stuff
Whenever anything, game or otherwise, is popularly touted as the best invention since sliced bread, I'm skeptical. I have no doubt that I'm being more critical of Mass Effect than I would be of something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or Fight Night: Round 3. I was also exceptionally critical of Bioshock and Halo 3 (I own the latter and like it; I plan on trying the full version of Bioshock soon).
However, I'm also obsessively self-critical and try very hard to be completely honest with myself, so I don't use words like "mediocre" and "alright" about a game everybody and his mother seems to love until I'm certain there's solid logic behind those claims. The stuff I say isn't just nitpicking -- I'm interested in the overall gameplay and want to enjoy the game -- but I'm reluctant to give any game five stars, if you know what I mean.
I'm a dumb Aspie
The obsessive self-honesty is just one symptom of Asperger Syndrome, a condition that describes the strange way my brain developed. Another symptom is extreme difficulty noticing and understanding body language, facial expressions, tone of voice, and non-literal speech (like sarcasm; I love using it, but I rarely catch it when others use it).
Much of the hoopla surrounding Mass Effect as an innovative game is its admirable progress with exactly those aspects of language. So, even though I notice and respect what Bioware has done there, it makes perfect sense that it would have less of an effect on my overall gameplay impression than it would have on players within the normal range of non-verbal, social intelligence.
Anyway, another interesting SUWT podcast. =)
Friday, December 07, 2007
Why buy short games?
As anyone who follows my blog regularly knows, I'm a fanatic about replayability when it comes to games. I don't buy games unless I think they'll last me more than a few weeks.
I can think of plenty of movies that I respect as good movies even though they're really only great once through. Two examples are The Game and Memento. But the films I buy on DVD are ones I know I'll want to watch again from time to time.
There are paintings that I can appreciate but wouldn't want to look at every day. Any poster or picture I buy to hang on a wall or set on a bookshelf is going to be one with continuous value. Scarily enough, one of my sister's gave me a card copy of that painting once because "it made me think of you" -- yeah, that should tell you something. =P
While people commonly make impulse purchases of music albums, I think almost everyone would say that he or she tries to buy only music that will last.
Is it different with games? I don't think so.
True, a 10-hour game will last a long time for a gamer who can only play 10 minutes here, 30 minutes there. But I think the only reason so many people choose to buy short games for $50, rather than rent them for $10, is because rental services keep such low stocks of each game. If a gamer could go to a rental store or online service with near-certainty that the game he wants will be in stock, what reason would there be to purchase the game instead?
If a gamer isn't sure how much playtime he'll be able to squeeze in on a given week, that doesn't necessarily mean he has to re-rent the game and pay more. Gamefly allows renters to keep a game as long as they continue to pay the subscription fee. Even if the renter took two full months to complete the game, the cost of both months' subscription is still less than buying a new game... and Gamefly allows two games out at a time.
What do you think? Is there any reason short games don't go straight to rental, like B-movies go straight to Blockbuster, other than rental stock shortages?
I can think of plenty of movies that I respect as good movies even though they're really only great once through. Two examples are The Game and Memento. But the films I buy on DVD are ones I know I'll want to watch again from time to time.
There are paintings that I can appreciate but wouldn't want to look at every day. Any poster or picture I buy to hang on a wall or set on a bookshelf is going to be one with continuous value. Scarily enough, one of my sister's gave me a card copy of that painting once because "it made me think of you" -- yeah, that should tell you something. =P
While people commonly make impulse purchases of music albums, I think almost everyone would say that he or she tries to buy only music that will last.
Is it different with games? I don't think so.
True, a 10-hour game will last a long time for a gamer who can only play 10 minutes here, 30 minutes there. But I think the only reason so many people choose to buy short games for $50, rather than rent them for $10, is because rental services keep such low stocks of each game. If a gamer could go to a rental store or online service with near-certainty that the game he wants will be in stock, what reason would there be to purchase the game instead?
If a gamer isn't sure how much playtime he'll be able to squeeze in on a given week, that doesn't necessarily mean he has to re-rent the game and pay more. Gamefly allows renters to keep a game as long as they continue to pay the subscription fee. Even if the renter took two full months to complete the game, the cost of both months' subscription is still less than buying a new game... and Gamefly allows two games out at a time.
What do you think? Is there any reason short games don't go straight to rental, like B-movies go straight to Blockbuster, other than rental stock shortages?
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Testing <---> Fun
Moorgard commented today on the blurry border between beta and marketing. His post got me wondering:
Enthusiasm
The more excited a tester is about a game, the more willing he or she will be to work, rather than just play, to help that game reach its potential. The less impressed a tester is with a beta, the more that tester will wonder if he or she made a mistake in signing up... and consider investing less work, less time, or quitting altogether.
Beta signups = blind contracts?
Certainly, disillusioned testers are still under a moral obligation to help test to one degree or another. But it can't be said that they knew full well what they were getting into, can it?
Trailers for box office films are often deceptive, despite the fact that a film trailer is the same basic type of experience as the full film (in both cases, the audience watches and listens). Interactive media, on the other hand, cannot be be comparably experienced through anything other than a demo (which is impossible for many MMOs and other games). Feature lists, FAQs, interviews, and trailers cannot ensure that the gamers who sign up for the beta test truly know that this is a game they're interested in.
Consequently, signups for beta testing are vague, largely blind, agreements. It's the equivalent of asking someone simply "Will you help me?" instead of "Will you help me to [a description of the task]?". Many testers who find that the beta doesn't match their expectations came into this position innocently (with no prior beta experience). Innocent or not, how critical can you be of someone for helping half-heartedly when that person had little knowledge of what he or she was getting into?
Timing
It seems the big question is: How far along should a game be before inviting outside testers?
I was fortunate enough to be involved in one of the early beta phases of EQ2's testing. The game was remarkably complete and functional at that time (at the early levels, at least). As a result, I was more enthusiastic in testing than usual. I reported more bugs, made more suggestions, and was basically a better tester than I was in other betas.
Are outside testers usually necessary to get the game to at least a marginally fun point in the game's evolution? I know there's much more involved than what I've covered here, but making beta fun as possible seems to be in the developer's interest.
- Should beta testers expect to be entertained?
- Can developers reasonably expect unpaid testers to endure boring content in order to make the game fun?
Enthusiasm
The more excited a tester is about a game, the more willing he or she will be to work, rather than just play, to help that game reach its potential. The less impressed a tester is with a beta, the more that tester will wonder if he or she made a mistake in signing up... and consider investing less work, less time, or quitting altogether.
Beta signups = blind contracts?
Certainly, disillusioned testers are still under a moral obligation to help test to one degree or another. But it can't be said that they knew full well what they were getting into, can it?
Trailers for box office films are often deceptive, despite the fact that a film trailer is the same basic type of experience as the full film (in both cases, the audience watches and listens). Interactive media, on the other hand, cannot be be comparably experienced through anything other than a demo (which is impossible for many MMOs and other games). Feature lists, FAQs, interviews, and trailers cannot ensure that the gamers who sign up for the beta test truly know that this is a game they're interested in.
Consequently, signups for beta testing are vague, largely blind, agreements. It's the equivalent of asking someone simply "Will you help me?" instead of "Will you help me to [a description of the task]?". Many testers who find that the beta doesn't match their expectations came into this position innocently (with no prior beta experience). Innocent or not, how critical can you be of someone for helping half-heartedly when that person had little knowledge of what he or she was getting into?
Timing
It seems the big question is: How far along should a game be before inviting outside testers?
I was fortunate enough to be involved in one of the early beta phases of EQ2's testing. The game was remarkably complete and functional at that time (at the early levels, at least). As a result, I was more enthusiastic in testing than usual. I reported more bugs, made more suggestions, and was basically a better tester than I was in other betas.
Are outside testers usually necessary to get the game to at least a marginally fun point in the game's evolution? I know there's much more involved than what I've covered here, but making beta fun as possible seems to be in the developer's interest.
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Xbox 360 and PS3 games for 20 bucks?
According to this Ripten article, the new Beowulf game is marked for $20!
It sounds like a savvy marketing strategy to me. Beowulf might be a good game, but it has little chance when placed in direct competition with the slew of popular games this Christmas. Twenty dollars is within the impulse purchase range. That's a big enough price difference to convince many gift-givers that it's not worth spending more on a hyped game.
Not to mention the oddity of the price has people talking about it and advertising for the company.
What do you think? Will this happen with other games? Will it happen more often? Or is $20 for a 360 game so soon after release just a symptom of this winter's long list of worthwhile games?
It sounds like a savvy marketing strategy to me. Beowulf might be a good game, but it has little chance when placed in direct competition with the slew of popular games this Christmas. Twenty dollars is within the impulse purchase range. That's a big enough price difference to convince many gift-givers that it's not worth spending more on a hyped game.
Not to mention the oddity of the price has people talking about it and advertising for the company.
What do you think? Will this happen with other games? Will it happen more often? Or is $20 for a 360 game so soon after release just a symptom of this winter's long list of worthwhile games?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
