healing grenades

As you might expect, I'm reading and watching a lot on E3 news. I might offer some impressions later. For now, I've got two words for you:

healing grenades!

Dynamics are the name of the game, so why not make healing a bit more interesting? Imagine a grenade or vial of healing potion that you must smash against the ground. Throw it down at your feet and it heals you. Throw it by some allies and all in the area of effect are healed. But throw it too close to an enemy... and your enemy is healed.

This creates opportunities for many memorable moments. If your fellow player or AI companion is toe-to-toe with an enemy and hurting, you can try to aim your throw behind your ally so it heals him and not the enemy as well. If the fighters turn at just the wrong moment, you might heal the wrong person, or both of them, or neither. There might even be a possibility that the grenade can be batted while in the air... flying across the battlefield to land who knows where.

Even more, healing grenades might react differently to different objects. They might burn particular enemies. They might explode when they touch a particular metal, hurting friends or foes alike. If two healing grenades hit one spot simultaneously, the healing effect might be exponentially increased.

The basic idea is that, like the sticky grenade in Halo, there are countless possibilities that make each counter feel fresh and potentially surprising. Healing grenades might not fit a particular game, but all games should include at least one dynamic like this.

digital dictionary

How many word games exist today? Hundreds. Why do they all use different dictionaries?

Is it really too much to ask that all developers use a common word bank?

cheap trust

One reason I'm looking forward to another Deus Ex sequel is the possibility of trust gameplay that's actually meaningful.

Too often, players are put in situations where the protagonist is asked to trust a character while being all but certain that character is indeed trustworthy. There's no real question that the character is trustworthy. There's not even a possibility that circumstances might remove power from the character to keep his/her promises. The character just says "trust me" and player automatically answers "sure".

It's nice to be surprised by betrayal sometimes. Players have to feel like they're really taking a chance in order for those decisions to trust to seem important.

leave it open

I just finished Mass Effect 2. Excellent. Bioware fixed problems, introduced some cool new dynamics, and cranked everything up a notch. A very memorable game, and one I'm anxious to play again with different choices.

But (an observation, rather than a complaint) I again ran into situations in which the "right answer" I hoped to choose was not among the dialog options. And, this time around, that situation came right at the end... at the most important decision my character makes in the game.

It wasn't the choice of action that disappointed me, but the reason behind it. Sometimes it's good to leave characters' motivations unstated so that the audience can inject his or her own. This is a game, afterall, so the player should have as much control as possible over the protagonist's implied thoughts.


If you're curious how I was disappointed at the end of Mass Effect 2, the explanation is below.


**SPOILER INCOMING**


Shepard has the options of destroying the Collector space-station or keeping it for research. Research could provide valuable insights into Reaper technology and play a pivotal role in defeating them. But that research could also be used by the Illusive Man, apparently devoted to protecting and advancing the human species, to gain power for Cerberus alone and either act as dictator over everyone or aid only humans so that other species becomes subordinates.

I chose to destroy the station. And all my crew, whose loyalties I had earned, agreed with me. They all recited the above reasoning back to me... that the Illusive Man lacked the wisdom to wield such power generously or that other species would suffer, and so on.

But that's not why I chose to destroy the station. Whatever the dangers of giving the Illusive Man that much power, I agreed that researching Reaper tech could prove vital. I thought saving the station was worth the risk; better to ensure survival and fight for justice later. But I chose to destroy it because I thought the danger of the Reapers still holding sway with their indoctrination ability, despite the Illusive Man's proposed radiation sweep, was too much to risk.

In other words, I would have given Cerberus the power if I was certain its researchers would be beyond the Reapers' mind control. Unfortunately (but understandably), I wasn't given the option of that motivation for Shepard.

Oh well. I actually think the dialog options, on a whole, were much improved in the sequel.


I'd say Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games on the 360 now.

It will be interesting to see next time through if I can earn my crew's loyalties and complete every mission using the neutral dialog choices, as opposed to paragon or renegade choices. I'm a pretty even-keeled person, but it is fun to shoot a criminal in the foot now and then. :)

It will also be interesting fighting without the soldier's ability to slow time. That plus the Viper sniper rifle plus cryo ammo was a lot of fun.

unlimited achievements

I'm not far into Mass Effect 2, but I'm very impressed so far. One thing Bioware did right was adding an in-game achievement system in addition to Xbox Live Achievements.

Console game developers shouldn't limit themselves to XBL Achievements, Avatar Awards and PSN Trophies. Design as many as you can, because gamers love them.

Red Dead surprise

As I was playing Red Dead Redemption today, I happened across a woman crying beside a dead man. By his limp hand was a revolver. The game only gives players a short amount of time to respond to strangers in need. It seemed I had missed my opportunity to help this man fight off bandits. He had failed to defend himself and died.

I stood for a few seconds watching the woman cry, and I turned away. Then I heard a gunshot. I spun back around, thinking it was a trick (like previous ploys NPCs had used on me) -- the woman must have killed the man and then pretended to be grieving so I would let down my guard. But no, the woman was dead. She had indeed been grieving, and now she had committed suicide with her fallen husband's revolver.

Kudos to Rockstar for creating a very memorable game-story experience.

3-D fails

I've seen two films with the new 3-D technology now: Avatar and Clash of the Titans (the 1981 version's better). And I, along with many others I've spoken to, am not thrilled by the 3-D. Though I appreciate the fresh experiences it provides, I much prefer traditional HD.

The problem is clarity. It seems the new 3-D tech creates tunnel vision, blurring all but the small part of the movie screen one is focused on. One might argue that this mimics natural vision, but the effect is not noticed with natural vision. It's simply a crisper picture and more pleasant experience for many, if not most viewers, without 3-D.

So, while I was cautiously excited about the new tech before it was demonstrated, I'm now hoping gaming will avoid the fad.

But there is an alternative to explore. Why not eliminate TV screens altogether and project visuals directly to the glasses?

It would make less sense for movies than for games, since movies rely on tighter control of what the audience is seeing at any given moment. But for games, think of all you could do with that extra joystick on the controller if looking in a 3-D environment was controlled by the player turning and tilting his head. And might it feel more immersive? A vestibular system in the glasses' rims could detect tilt.

I'm not impressed by the latest 3-D tech, but there are still plenty of viewing options to explore.


P.S. Yes, I plan on blogging again, though probably not with the same frequency as before.

offline play

It seems as if offline play is increasingly forbidden. It's not enough that games features rely on an internet connection, like online multiplayer. No, the game must be connected so that the publisher can verify its legitimacy; otherwise, the game is crippled... even unplayable.

Case in point: I've been playing Oblivion recently and investing a lot of time into decking out my character's castle, a DLC addition to the game. The castle was my focus, for reasons I've previously described. Late last week, lightning fried my modem and severed my internet access for a few days. When I attempted to load my game, I was told some content is "no longer available" and would I like to load anyway? In a moment of naivety, I answered, "yes".

Well, I'm back online now, and you can probably guess what happened. My castle was part of that content no longer available. And when it disappeared, so did everything inside. Hours of gameplay lost. I had been stocking it with all sorts of items, including one-of-a-kind quest rewards and magic items. All gone. I even had to redo the quest to gain possession of the castle.

Had I known I would lose all of this if I loaded my save file, what were my other options? There were only two other options: to start a new character or don't play the game. In other words, I was cut off from all progress I had made in the game until I was online again.

This is far from an exceptional experience. Every time I'm away from internet access, half my Xbox Live Arcade games are not playable at all, and DLC is often unavailable.

How rare is it to be cut off from internet access? It's not that uncommon.

Many people have unstable connections. I have known many people who lose internet access for minutes at a time and have experienced that myself. Scott was telling me today that he can lose internet for just a few seconds and it means he cannot save the game he's playing because his DLC access was cut off during that small hiccup.

Many people travel to locations with no internet. I took my Xbox 360 to such a place over Thanksgiving and was denied access to many of the games I own because of this online verification nonsense.

Publishers, stop treating your customers like thieves. Somehow, every other industry has survived frequent thefts without placing limits on how and when customers can use the products they buy. Figure it out.

show player limits

A problem I seem to run into increasingly often in games is that I'm shown a goal my character doesn't yet have the skills or other means to reach and am not informed of this limitation. In other words, the goal/achievement is listed or shown somewhere, and I spend an hour trying to achieve it before realizing that I'm not supposed to try yet.

For example, The Saboteur has a Perks section in the pause menu. If the player accomplishes specific tasks (kill 5 Nazis with a scoped rifle, blow up 10 radio towers, etc), then a reward (extra ammo, less sniper sway, etc) is unlocked and the player can try to complete the next level Perk. One of those Perks challenges the player to blow up four train bridges. Well, I've been to a number of these bridges now, large and small, trying to figure out how to blow them up and it doesn't seem possible.

Apparently, some future mission(s) will unlock my ability to destroy the bridges. The problem is that I wasn't told that... and since I have been able to destroy every other Nazi target with dynamite charges, I had no reason to assume bridges are any different. So I wasted an hour or so trying to figure out how to do something I can't do.

Overall, I'm enjoying The Saboteur. I'm just using that as an example of a problem I've experienced in many games recently.

A developer has options. First, you can hide a goal/object/area until it is achievable. Second, you bluntly tell or show the player that the goal will become achievable later. Or you can ensure that it is impossible for the player to encounter the goal until it is achievable. There are probably other options as well. In any case, the problem is relatively easy to avoid if taken into account.

home sweet home

Almost without exception, when a person walks into a home for the first time, that person will deliberately look around at the furnishings and decorations. The same can't be said for businesses, schools, etc.

A great but uncommon feature in RPGs is a place the player can call home and fill with stuff from his or her adventures. From Everquest 2 to Oblivion to The Sims games, player homes have been offered in many forms but always to great appeal. Gamers like to be able to share their personalities and experiences with in-game visuals.

The Sims games are rare in that player-created content is a cornerstone that enables endless variety. Most games aren't open to that, so I'll instead focus on Oblivion as an example.

Oblivion allows me to own multiple homes simultaneously in different cities. Those homes vary greatly in architecture and size. I prefer to focus on just one place, a castle I got through DLC (Bloodhorn Castle). I can't buy new wall textures or furnishings, like in EQ2. But that's alright, because the beauty of Oblivion's system is that it allows me to bring back items I find in my adventures and place them where I like. That includes weapons and armors, gems and jewels, clothes, quest objects, tableware, and even food.

So, for example, in one display case I keep all the gemstones I find. In another I keep jewelry I've won and stolen (my character's a thief). In yet another, I have the decorative breastplate and shield of the castle's former owner.

Every wall has a small nook, and in these nooks I place silver, pewter, and decorative urns. In the corners, there are helms and shields from the different enemies I've slain. On racks are various weapons and shields from quests and merchants.

The beauty of this is that it is truly my home. It reflects not only my preferences and aesthetics, but my experiences and desired memories as well.

Homes reflect their owners. They provide subjects for friends and strangers alike to discuss. And they provide owners with comfort and tools for reflection. In a game, that means players socializing and looking back to remind themselves of all the experiences that make the game worth playing.

Incidentally, Oblivion allows players to make considerable money through alchemy, so in my latest playthrough I haven't needed to sell any extraordinary item I find. I can bring these back as souvenirs. Of course, I can sell these at any time. My decorum is also my financial collateral.

The home is a too often neglected feature in RPGs.


By the way, I'd show you pictures of my furnished castle, but I play the 360 version of Oblivion. My PC isn't good enough to run the game.

competing for Awards

For many gamers, like myself, Xbox Live's Avatar Awards are still mythical. I have yet to play a game with Awards, because few games offer them. Perhaps that's because Awards are, at the moment, nothing more than visual Achievements. That's not bad, really, but there could be more depth.

Many people care about XBL Achievements and many don't. That's largely because it's an all-or-nothing scenario in favor of those with lots of spending money (to buy games with) and a long time owning the console. If someone has owned a 360 for a year longer than you, they probably have a higher Gamerscore.

Achievements are also impersonal. If you and I play the same game, we'll typically get the same Achievements for doing the same things.

But what if Avatar Awards were different? What if gamers could compete for them?

What if my friend JoeSchmoe64 and I could voluntarily wager that one of us will get a particular Award before the other? The winner gets the Award, while the same Award is blocked for the loser. The winner could be given the power to unlock the loser's Award for him afterward, or they could agree to permanently leave one with the trophy and the other empty-handed.

If the game included multiple Awards, then Joe might win two trophies while I win two others... and we'd each have something to show.

Keep in mind, Avatar Awards needn't all be complicated models or animations, like a train moving around an avatar's feet. They could be as simple as blocks stacked beside an avatar or a banner draped behind, each signifying a specific achievement.

Honestly, I haven't put much thought into this idea. But the basic idea is that Awards could be made more meaningful than Achievements by allowing players to bet them as stakes or otherwise making them reflect actions that set one gamer apart from others.

reintroduction

It has become fairly common for games to include some sort of tutorial. Many incorporate the tutorial into actual play, as Halo and Assassin's Creed do. But there's still room to improve, of course.

One improvement would be to design a tutorial system specifically for reintroduction. Gamers often abandon a game for days or even months. They forget the controls, goals, interface, etc. It would be nice if there was an option for these gamers other than looking at a control map in the pause menu or starting over.

In most cases, a practice area would serve this purpose. Provide the player with an area where all skills may be practiced without great penalty or challenge. Allow the player to practice here without a tutorial, in case the player is able to pick it up quickly or is impatient. But also provide the option of instruction in the form of NPCs, signs, HUD pop-ups, etc.

Jogging a player's memory is different than teaching him or her new skills. There should be a different system for it, when time allows.

learning curves, options and challenges

Though I'm not a fan of every addition in Assassin's Creed 2, it is a lot of fun overall. In the beginning, it felt slow and confined. I knew that it would pick up and set me free eventually, but it definitely kept me on training wheels for far too long and held back much of what ultimately makes it a great game.

Learning curves make sense. It also makes sense that more complex games need longer learning curves.

But when your game has a lot to learn, the answer is not to restrict players to a little bit at a time. Rather, offer the player many options at any given time and restrict only how much is expected of the player by challenges he or she faces. Offer elite challenges, but only in such a way that they are clearly bonuses and not necessary to progress in core areas.

It's like teaching students. If one student is already somewhat familiar with a topic or picks it up quicker than other students, the solution is not to silence that student and prevent him from offering what he can, so that other students don't feel pressured. Instead, the solution is to allow that student to surpass normal requirements and provide special challenges that other students can happily skip and forget.

Players should never feel like they're held back... that they're offered too few options and opportunities. Players should never feel like they're waiting for "the real fun" to begin.

Making learning curves malleable enough to suit multiple playstyles and levels of experience should involve more tweaking of challenges and expectations than of opportunities.

moving with NPCs

"Follow me!" the NPC says. So I do.

Well, I try to.

When I walk, the NPC is moving faster than me. I fall behind. When I run, the NPC is moving slower, and annoyingly alternates between walking and running because he or she is incapable of matching my pace precisely.

Why is this a problem? Why does it show up in every single game that has me follow an NPC or has an NPC follow me?

Pandemic job cuts

It seems the rumor about Pandemic closing was largely true. About 200 Pandemic employees are being laid off today.

It's unclear right now what exactly EA's plans are for Pandemic. Apparently, some senior Pandemic employees will be transferred to EA's studio in Los Angeles. EA claims this is not the end of the "Pandemic brand", so those folks may get their own studio within the existing infrastructure there in LA.

Three questions seem to be repeating among my friends in reaction:

• Is this really the end of Pandemic?
• How does this reflect on EA?
• Should I still buy The Saboteur?

First, assuming Pandemic remains in some form as EA suggested, what can we expect in regard to quality of future Pandemic games? I expect the same.

The sad fact is that high turnover is the norm all across the game industry, with few exceptions (Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling recently cited their good employee retention as a factor in the quality of their work). One might excuse this as the inevitable consequence of any project-based work or condemn it as something fiscally unnecessary, but it is the industry norm.

My point is that most of the development companies you admire switch out junior staff all the time. It is the leadership of senior staff and management which define each company's reputation. If Pandemic's leadership transfers relatively intact to LA, then I expect their high standards to transfer as well.

By the way, I mean no disrespect to the junior employees at Pandemic who have lost their jobs. The Saboteur seems like a great game, and that level of quality is not possible without talented and dedicated workers from top to bottom.


Next, how does this reflect on EA?

Many gamers think of EA as a giant, evil corporation that gobbles up the little guys and likes to churn out endless sequels to games that were once great. Five years ago, that might have been a fair reputation. But in the past year, EA's leadership changed, and I believe they've done a good job of improving the company.

Look at what John Carmack of id Studios had to say:

"I think there really has been a major intentional corporate cultural change there that came down from on high, that said, 'We're going to change the way things are done here.' "

Or just look at EA's recent games: Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, Spore, The Saboteur, etc -- fresh, quality games. I wouldn't call Mirror's Edge or Spore great games, but they certainly excel in some ways and broke new ground. Some forget, but the studio that made Dead Space was called EA Redwood Shores when the game was released, not Visceral Games like it's called now. An EA studio was also responsible for a game I consider to be one of the best of all time, LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth II (the PC version puts the console version to shame).

Of course, EA could always return to their old ways, especially given a catalyst like our current struggling economy. I expressed worry a week or two ago on Twitter when EA made some remark about placing more emphasis on established IPs to protect themselves from the economy. It's hard to begrudge them that, considering Dead Space and Mirror's Edge certainly didn't sell as many copies as they had hoped. Anyway, I learned long ago that even the most reliable organizations can falter and the weak ones can grow stronger. I just accept them as they are.


Finally, should today's Pandemic news affect your decision of whether or not to buy their latest game, The Saboteur? I'd advise no.

Whether or not EA's mass layoffs were avoidable or even selfish, I have no doubt that the developers involved in The Saboteur want to see that the game they made is appreciated by gamers. If the game was shown lots of love on forums but no in sales, it just wouldn't be the same. That would raise questions about its quality, don't you think? The best way you can appreciate the fired developers is to buy their game.

Myself, I wouldn't buy it solely for that reason. I'm not saying go out and buy it to support those Pandemic folks even if the game doesn't interest you. I'm just saying, if it does look like a game you'd enjoy, don't let this Pandemic news stop you from buying it.

And, of course, you could also appreciate these folks by paying attention to the game credits and following their careers as they move to other positions and companies.


Anyway, what do you think? Does that all sound fair enough?

Modern Warfare 2 issues (360)

There are dozens of reviews out there that tout Modern Warfare 2's strong points. And they're right -- it's a great game. Infinity Ward took a great game and improved it in many ways. They even added a new mode, Special Ops (co-op missions), which itself provides hours of repeatable entertainment.

But the game does have problems, so let's talk about them. I can only comment on the Xbox 360 version.

First, as often as players avoided particular maps in the first Modern Warfare, and with a guarantee of millions of players, you would think it would have been a no-brainer for Infinity Ward to enable players to avoid those maps automatically.

Why not simply allow players to check/uncheck maps on a list? When a map comes up that the player doesn't like and has unchecked, that person's game automatically leaves the current host and searches for another with one of his desired maps. If the devs are worried players will avoid maps before getting to know them, the option could be withheld until a player has experienced a particular map five or ten times.

Next, grouping with friends seems to be more complicated than it needs to be and even, at times, impossible. Scott and I tried to group up four or five times in Ground War (which allows Live parties), but couldn't figure out how to get it to work. I used the game's Invite option to group up with him in the general multiplayer lobby (that much worked), but then he'd never show up in the same match player list or match. I'm pretty sure I've seen people grouped up (they shared a clan tag), so grouping is possible. But even if Scott and I were missing something, it begs the question: Why?

As for the story, Scott pointed out how strange and awkward it is that the player is thrust into helping Makarov slaughter civilians without any lead-up whatsoever. Are we really to believe that Makarov would include a stranger in such a wild action right away? If not, shouldn't there be at least some passing reference to the CIA agent's gradual infiltration?

Lastly, there's the problem that I knew would bother even before launch. Much has been said about the lack of dedicated servers for the PC version, but the void is felt on Xbox Live as well. The game now switches to a new host when the first lags, which means a pause of anywhere between 10 seconds to 40+ seconds (longer pauses are more common in my experience). This obviously disrupts the flow of the match and screws up firefights in progress at the moment of pause.

Ultimately, it's not that big a deal, but I have to wonder why the problem exists at all when we pay for XBL multiplayer access. Access to online multiplayer has always been Xbox Live Gold's primary selling point, and yet Microsoft doesn't even attempt to ensure connection quality during that multiplayer? Honestly, I blame Microsoft more than Infinity Ward for this.

Another problem I'll lay at Microsoft's feet is the apparent lack of a way to mute all and not have to manually mute every jackass that runs his mouth or makes inane noises on XBL. Apparently, there is a way to mute everyone except your friends, but it's hidden and that's why many XBL users don't know about it. From the Xbox Live Dashboard, go to Profile > Edit Profile > Privacy Settings > Voice and Text > and select Friends Only. Both developers and hardcore gamers often forget that not everybody lives on the internet and is skilled with search engines and forum searches. I recommend to Infinity Ward that they advertise this XBL option somehow.

As I said, it's a great game overall. But these and other issues can be annoying. Anything else you noticed? Could a patch fix the problem?

progression through failure

I just want to emphasize a point I made the other day. Players can, and generally should, progress even as they fail.

You can see this in games like Diablo 2 and Borderlands. When you die, you don't lose the experience points you gained on the way to your goal (such as killing a boss mob).

That ensures, in a natural way, that players will eventually overcome any challenge. Failure doesn't mean reset. You're always progressing.

The frustration a player feels in response to failure is nothing compared to the frustration of being stuck. The player must always feel like he or she is making progress... even when that player is performing poorly.

why I avoid Steam

I have used Steam on occasion, but only in response to exceptional bargains. In general, I avoid Steam, instead opting for services like Direct2Drive. The reason is that I can only play a game purchased through Steam if I'm online, so Valve can constantly verify the legality of my game copy. Why is this a problem?

Imagine that you buy a ball. Now imagine that the store you buy the ball from demands that you always play within view of the store, and that you return the ball there for keeping whenever you're not using it. Is it accurate to say that you completely own the ball? Or are you just renting/leasing it, albeit courtesy of a one-time fee?

• having to run a 3rd-party program whenever I play
• having to remain online to access offline features
• having to re-register every time I reinstall (because of temporary hardware/software problems, because I needed the drive space, or because I simply lost interest for a while and later want to play again)

These are requirements which diminish my ownership of a game. It's not like a solid, self-contained product that I can box up in a closet and return to years later. It's not something that can be loaned or traded, transferred to another operating system or passed on when I'm done with it. No, it's something under contract. It's a lawyer's loan -- here today, gone tomorrow; ever under restrictions, the threat of change, and the threat of revocation.

When I buy a game with online features, I do not expect a guarantee that those features will be supported for free or forever. But I do expect that all offline gameplay be available to me as long as I possess the code on a disc or on any other storage device. I expect a finished product which I can use whenever and however I wish in my own home.

I don't deny that Steam is an admirable service in many ways, but I avoid it mainly for this reason. How about you?


As for Steam's recent deal with Infinity Ward to exclusively handle Modern Warfare 2's servers, I support D2D, Impulse, GamersGate and others in their response. It's obviously unreasonable to expect a retailer to sell a product that requires the consumer to use that retailer's competitor... and not just once, but every time that consumer uses the product.

fake emergencies

me: "Do you think anything is lost by the way games say "hurry!" and then let you dally all you want?"

Ysharros: "I most certainly do. It sets expectations (at least in me) that then aren't fulfilled. Yet almost every game I know does this."

I agree. If an NPC urges me to hurry, that urgency should be reflected in the events thereafter.

gradual indicators (navigation)

Maps are the most common way to guide players around games. Other methods include beacons, landmarks, a compass, trails, and many other things.

Another option I rarely see is what I'll call gradual indicators. By that I mean, a visual feature becomes stronger/weaker or more/less common as the player nears certain places or objects of importance. These gradual indicators can lessen or even negate the need for UI methods which distract from the gameworld.

For example, elevation can be used in this way. In Rise of the Argonauts, the player knows whether he is running towards the palace or the docks of Mycenae by whether the path is sloping upward or downward. The same method can be used in any number of settings, including dungeons and roads. The degree of a slope can be telling, too. If two paths both lead up a mountain, one can be recognizable from the other if it is significantly steeper.

Vegetation can be a gradual indicator. Grass and shrubs might grow tall in one area and shrink or die out toward another. Oaks might dominate one area while mesquite trees dominate another. Both trees might habit an area, but the ratio between them could indicate to the player in which direction he is headed.

Architecture and objects can be used in the same way. The facades of buildings and their relationships to each other (such as how far apart they are) can indicate if the area the player is proceeding toward is wealthy or poor, old or new, damaged or undamaged (by war, weather, or graffiti), and so on. Statues and decorations can change in frequency or in subject through an environment. The type of shops or their names can change in style and tone.

Even audio can lead players. The roar of a waterfall or pounding of waves can gradually rise in volume as the player nears them. Likewise, the sounds of animals, the firing of weapons, the chatter and laughter or shouts of NPCs, or a thousand other things.

Animations and even environmental A.I. can guide players. As a player nears a battlefield, he might increasing notice NPCs crouched over and weeping. Or NPCs might be increasingly erratic and skittish... increasingly distressed as the player nears the source of that distress. The NPCs might pace, look around fearfully, or chatter to themselves. Think of the A.I. in Batman: Arkham Asylum and how the Joker's men act differently as they become more aware of Batman's presence and are afraid.

There are countless forms gradual indicators can take. The goal is to help players navigate environments without having to take their eyes off the gameworld or see anything that takes their attention off the story they're experiencing.