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.

high-speed stealth

In Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare multiplayer, I use the UAV Jammer perk for all my loadouts. If you're not familiar, that means my character is hidden from enemy radar except when I fire my weapon (and not even then if I'm using a silencer). I don't just use UAV Jammer for sniping. I use it in combination with machineguns, shotguns, SMGs... everything.

I play Ground War mode exclusively, which means close to 18 players in every battle. The maps are small enough that you're likely to encounter an enemy or be shot every 10 seconds or less.

The result is an experience that I have had in no other game: high-speed stealth.

Stealth in games usually occurs at a slow, strategic pace. Opportunities might appear for only seconds at a time, but you can remain hidden from danger as long as you want... strike when you please.

In my CoD4 matches, on the other hand, stealth is pressured and tactical (the difference between strategy and tactics is that tactics is done on-the-fly, often in response to unexpected events). There is no place to hide where someone can't pick you off with a sniper bullet, a grenade, or knife in the back. Also, enemies are always changing position... and fast.

Stealth in Modern Warfare can mean nothing more than being aware that an enemy is around the corner while he's not aware you're there, allowing you a split-second advantage when you meet face-to-face and he's the only one who is surprised. Or it can mean coming up behind a whole group of enemies undetected while the rest of your team attacks from the opposite side.

This is an uncommon type of gameplay that entire games could be designed around. Try swapping your Stopping Power or Juggernaut perk in CoD4 with UAV Jammer sometime and see what I mean.

roleplay isn't for nerds alone

It occurs to me that books and movies are basically an externalization of the roleplay all human beings naturally engage in as children.

In other words, we never really stop roleplaying as we grow into adults. We just rely increasingly on the imaginations of others... entertaining their adventures, rather than conjuring our own.

Instead of donning paper helmets and swinging wooden swords, shooting paintball guns and lobbing water balloons, we watch action movies, violent and competitive sports, and military documentaries. The girl who plays with dolls and tea sets might grow up to watch melodramas and "play" hostess at gatherings. It's still playing pretend, but why come up with your own fantasies when someone else can provide better ones?

If this is true, then it makes sense that video games would be tagged as childish, because the medium is a step back toward the self-directed roleplay of childhood.

It also suggests that role-playing games are not just for nerds. They're for everyone. If RPGs have trouble matching the sales of shooters, perhaps the problem isn't the genre itself. Perhaps the problem is a mistake in how RPGS are commonly realized.

It's not that RPGs are intellectual. Football has an abundance of rules and more strategy than chess. But football is also fundamentally about action. And there, I think, is the key. It's the poor presence and implementation of action that holds most RPGs back from broad appeal.

On the one hand, you have RPGs like Final Fantasy and Mass Effect which emphasize dialog and cutscenes over other elements. On the other hand, you have MMOs and D&D-derived stat-based combat systems in which the rules dictate more than guide.

I'm happy to see a lot of blending between genres these days; particularly between shooters and RPGs. I think developers will find that most people, and not just nerds or hardcore gamers, respond well to RPG elements when those elements don't slow things down to a crawl and allow players the freedom to direct their own experiences.

immunity

Many games over the years have given particular enemies immunities to particular player attacks. In some games (often MMOs), this means the player must choose the right gear to take to battle. In other games (like Bioshock), the player must switch weapons, ammo, or combat stances on-the-fly; typically with a delay between one and four seconds. In still other games, the player can immediately respond with multiple options.

The first scenario is only good for games that strongly favor strategy over tactics, because you're screwed if you take the wrong gear. The second scenario can be annoying, but it does lead to tense moments while players slowly reload or adjust while bullets whiz by their heads.

The last scenario is my preference. Two games which act as examples are Batman: Arkham Asylum and Diablo 2.

In Arkham, knife-fighters are immune to regular hits until stunned. Flare-fighters must be jumped over and attacked from behind unless taken down with a grab. Crazies are immune to grab moves. These immunities make for fun tactical dynamics largely because countering them can be done instantaneously and in a variety of ways. For example, crazies can be taken out with a Ground Pound move, knocked down with a batarang, or knocked down by throwing other enemies into them.

In Diablo 2, enemies can be immune to elements (fire, ice, poison, lightning) or even to all physical or magic damage. Again, these immunities can be countered instantly and in a variety of ways. By the time the player encounters these enemies, he has acquired many skills. Whatever the immunity, the player has multiple skills which can get around it.

It's not a one-size-fits-all design strategy, but it has always felt more fun to me.

creature depth

In S.T.A.L.K.E.R., dogs act differently depending on how many fellow dogs are around. When alone, they run away. In large packs, they will attack. And when the player kills most of the dogs in a pack, the survivors lose courage and run for safety.

This sort of depth, simple as it is, adds considerably to the richness of a gameworld. It could potentially add strategic depth as well. Notice that it's not just behavior but also goal priority which changes in that dog example.

Connecting AI behavior to stuff like population and environment is something I'd like to see more of.

skills and appreciation

I mentioned to someone the other day that I think the fiery boulder spell in Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction is one of the best skills ever. It's great watching the boulder roll into enemies and knock them back.

The boulder lasts more than just a second, and I think that's a large part of what makes the skill so much fun. It's rare for players to be able to pause for a moment and appreciate an action they just performed.

The tranquilizer gun in Perfect Dark 64 is another example with lasting effect. I can recall laughing hysterically with friends as one of us loaded up the other on tranquilizer and watched his screen go blurry. It could get annoying. But, again, you had a second or two to appreciate your action.

separating skills and loot

A question came up while I was thinking about Borderlands. In a loot-driven game, must skills and loot be related?

I'd say no, they don't have to be. Yet they usually are, aren't they?

Weapon specialization skills are common. I've never been sure if I like them. On the one hand, specialization can give a character personality. In Diablo 2, I imagined my Barbarian differently depending on whether he fought with swords or with giant two-handed mauls. On the other hand, it deters players from using items they aren't specialized in, thereby reducing the fun value of other loot.

Overall, I think I prefer no specialization skills. That reduces the likelihood that I'll loot something I can't comfortably use. But a few games, like Diablo 2, do offer enough skill options that one can avoid those of specialization entirely.

The regular bond between loot and skills isn't limited to specialization, though. Magic users are often limited to staffs, wands and "focus" items. Incidentally, why must magic classes always be intellectual pansies who lob spells from afar?

Melee characters get skills that involve spinning, slamming, or jabbing. Ranged-style characters get skills for accuracy, long shots, and reload time. Many, if not most, skills in games rely heavily on whether a character is a melee or ranged fighter.

Anyway, I'd like to see some games consciously separate skills and loot... meaning any character can use any weapon or other item, and character types are divided by skills unrelated to what they're using.

visual foreshadowing

Aside from MMOs, which are predictable to a fault, adventure games tend to lean heavily on surprise encounters. The player turns a corner and "Boo!" -- danger leaps out and combat begins... or a story character appears and dialog begins.

It doesn't have to be that way. An alternative is to show the player exactly where they're going, exactly what's coming, thereby building anticipation.

Think of LOTR. Frodo sees Mount Doom long before he reaches it. In fact, it's in almost constant view as he travels from location to location, inching ever closer.

Or what about when the heroes are guarding Helm's Deep. The enemy army doesn't advance on the fortress in a mad rush. They march slowly toward it. There's a lot of time for anxiety to build.

The player could be walking through a town and see an event or important character at the end of the road. It might be up to the player whether to go straight to the scenario or to meander through every building and conversation along the way.

A massive battle might loom in a valley ahead. Enemies or other content might fill the path leading down. While that content is engaged, the battle remains in sight and becomes louder with each step. As the player gets closer, new sights and sounds may appear. When the player gets close, stray arrows or bullets might land around him.

Surprises can be a lot of fun, but it can also be fun to know exactly what's coming.

combos with guns

Could a combo system somewhat similar to Arkham Asylum's be designed for a shooter game? Is it impossible to mix combos into FPS games?

I think it's possible, though a solution isn't obvious. Nothing comes immediately to mind, so I'm going to leave the question out there while I think of how to do it. Any ideas?

combos

I somehow managed to pull off a 40-hit combo the other day in Batman: Arkham Asylum. It was glorious! It was also easy... in comparison to the combo systems of other games.

I'm usually not a fan of combo systems. That's because I have to remember well over a dozen button combinations... XXY, XXXA, X+Y then A while rolling the thumbstick from down to forward, etc.

In Arkham, one can pull off a fun and impressive combo with nothing more than well-timed presses of X and Y. If an enemy has a knife, you'll need B. If an enemy has shock baton, you'll need to double-tap A. With two-to- four buttons, I can put Jet Li to shame.

There are a few other commands that can be given: A+X to throw, Y+B to cripple, LT for a batarang. But they're unnecessary, and combat is a blast without them.

Arkham achieves this through context-sensitivity. One button activates one of dozen animations depending on how the player-character is oriented in relation to enemies and timing. Even the special moves, like throw and cripple, vary in effect or animation.

I guess, if I see a lesson in Arkham Asylum's combat system, it's this: the dynamics of combat don't all have to be controlled by the player. You don't want to cut the player out entirely or fake participation. But complex combat systems don't have to mean complex controls or instructions.

context-sensitive + co-op

Whoever combines the sort of dynamic and context-sensitive combat of Batman: Arkham Asylum with co-op in a quality game will make a lot of money.

Need I say more?

strategic audio

I played some Frontlines multiplayer the other day with some fellow CoWs. Somehow, Oak managed to sneak up on Scott with a tank. Yeah, let that sink in a moment.

He was probably able to do so for one of three reasons: (1) Scott was daydreaming, (2) Scott was so focused on something that all else fell out of focus, or (3) the sound of the tank was masked by other sounds.

It's the third possibility that I think designers should think hard about, because it's a trick rarely used. Sound doesn't have to be a subconscious element in combat. It can be a factor in difficulty... something the player must rely on or distrust.

For example, there's such thing as audio camouflage - intentionally mimicking a sound to create a mistaken impression. It can be used to hide dangers or to make the harmless unnerving. It's a power that can be limited to AI and environments or offered to the player as an active skill.

Noise can be distracting and disorienting. I don't recommend setting an entire game level around loud machinery, but the sort of constant noise you hear next to planes or jets can hide enemies.

The cocking of a gun can warn players that something bad is about to happen... or tip off enemies. Imagine sneaking up behind an enemy and cocking your shotgun just so you could see the enemy jump with surprise and scramble for safety.

My point is sound has a lot of strategic potential in games that rarely gets used.

vehicles as playgrounds

Combat involving vehicles doesn't have to mean the player is driving or controlling turrets. It can also mean players and enemies climbing around or on top of a vehicle, or fighting for control of the cabin/cockpit.

I thought of this in connection with The Saboteur, so let me just copy my post from those forums:

One of the influences for Sean Devlin is Indiana Jones, right? So how about some combat on and around vehicles, rather than in them.

In the first Indiana Jones movie, there's a scene where Indiana stole a German truck and Nazis are chasing him. Some Nazis are in the truck he stole, and they start to climb around the side of the truck and on top of it. Jones shakes some off, brushes some up against environmental objects, and fights someone battling for control of the vehicle inside the cabin.

In The Last Crusade, Jones is the guy on the outside. He rides up to a tank on a horse and jumps on the tank. At one point, he's squirming around as the driver is trying to crush him against the environment. He also makes it onto the top of the tank, where he battles many soldiers while the tank keeps moving. Earlier in the movie, Jones jumped from one speeding boat to another to battle in that.

John McClane, another influence for Devlin, did this as well. He fought on a plane wing while the plane was moving in Die Hard 2.

If it's not too late to add, this would be fun in The Saboteur. Perhaps only as one level, in which the game controls the vehicles while the player moves around and between them.

If, at least, enemies were able to jump on the side or back of a vehicle, then that would add a new layer of fun as players try to shake or squish the enemies. If the player could jump on a vehicle, then the enemies could try the same thing.

Anyway, the point is: if you're going to have vehicles in your game, consider that vehicles don't have to be objects in a playground -- they can be playgrounds themselves.

the thrill of victory

Jason repeats a common criticism of MMOs post-Everquest. He thinks they need harsher penalties for failure in order to make victory feeling like a bigger accomplishment.

I would deepen the thrill of accomplishment another way. Instead of making penalties harsher -- and I've written before on that subject -- make challenges more difficult. And make some so difficult that those victories are not inevitable.

I'm not against player setbacks. In fact, I wrote another article about getting players to accept setbacks. Of particular importance is the section on power:

....The other ingredient, keeping the gameplay fun despite the loss, is more difficult, largely because of an inherent importance of optimization in current MMO models. In the player's eyes, it's not the character's circumstances which have been reduced; it's the character. If the player's character is merely a medium of power, then the loss of power is a loss of identity. The character is diminished, rather than the same character having to approach challenges in a different way.

Think about running out of ammo for your favorite gun in Halo, Goldeneye or some other first-person shooter. You probably cursed your luck and thought about how much more difficult the gameplay was going to be without that weapon. Maybe you were even asking yourself how long you'd have to fight with an inferior weapon before regaining your prized instrument of destruction. But you didn't turn off the console. Why? Because the weapon was just something your character was using...it was not representative of your character. Bond loves his PP7, but he's still James Bond without it. The Master Chief is equally the Master Chief with an assault rifle, pistol or needler.

Whether or not the penalties for failure in combat should be more severe than merely respawning depends largely on other systems in a specific game, as demonstrated above. There are also many penalty systems, like this, which haven't been explored deeply.

In other words, the question "Should a game/MMO have penalties for failure beyond death?" is not a simple yes/no question. But, generally speaking, I still believe in two basic principles: (1) players should experience low moments as well as high moments; (2) the main penalty for failure should be a player's disappointment in him or her self, rather than a judgment made on the player by the game.

elevation

I've been having a lot of fun in Battlefield 1943 on Xbox Live. I'll post a full review soon, perhaps tomorrow, but I want to point out one feature in particular which I'd like to see in more FPS games.

1943 makes great use of elevation. Half or more of each map isn't flat. As a result, players are constantly using hill slopes and water banks as cover. The maps are almost entirely exterior, but players are still constantly surprised by enemies coming up from behind, below, or above them... or even right in front of them (hidden by a slope).


Elevation plays a strategic role in anti-tank combat, since tanks are vulnerable to explosives on top, just behind the cannon. A tank can drive onto some raised areas, but then its guns are useless as they cannot aim down.

Elevation also provides for some unique experiences. I once drove a tank up a slope that was barely wide enough for it. Below the end of the incline was a hill checkpoint, particularly hard to capture. Players are used to infantry attacking from the incline I was using, but not used to seeing tanks there. I kept driving forward and dropped my tank on top of an enemy, crushing him. Another unique experience is hearing a plane but not seeing it until it appears from behind a hill and drops its bombs on you.

I'm sure even more could be accomplished when elevation is considered an explicit game feature.

fear and power

To be honest, I have mixed feelings about the upcoming Dante's Inferno:

It's made by a lot of the same guys who made Dead Space, now called Visceral Games, so I have little doubt that they're aiming for high quality and they have the skills and drive to achieve it. Actual gameplay hasn't been shown yet, but the general idea of melee action through monsters and areas fashioned after Dante's dream of Hell is definitely exciting. My guess is it's going to be pretty sweet.

But, though I'm sure the game will be creepy, Visceral seems to be inherently dampening fear of Dante's demons by making them all mortal. When you give a character power over a threat, that threat is less intimidating.

Of course, perception is everything. Perceived power is more important than actual power when trying to instill fear. A perfect example is the fight between Sam and Shelob, the giant spider, in LOTR: The Return of the King. It seems as though Sam is hopelessly outmatched, and that is what makes the encounter frightening.



If Sam immediately demonstrated some success, the scene would be less thrilling. If his success was predictable, if it was more the result of careful planning than of impulsive decisions and quick reflexes, we would fear less for Sam.

The biggest hurdle for a game designer trying to instill fear is certainty of victory. If a player knows he must defeat an enemy to progress in the game, then he immediately knows that victory is possible.

Books and movies have been killing off supernatural foes like demons and spirits for millennia. But I've always thought the ghostly tales predating the French Revolution and its cultural aftershocks are the better frights. Authors often played with the Christian understanding of demons, angels and souls; a perception that spirits could not be killed and human beings have no physical capacity to oppose them. People could only mentally resist and call upon God's effortless protection. Folktales preceding Christianity also involved struggles between humans and spirits in which humans used only their wits to escape, capture, or banish the spirits... rather than to destroy them.


Anyway, so here are some recommendations I would make to the Dante's Inferno team.

Don't make every enemy effectively mortal. Instead, provide non-lethal ways for the player to defeat the most terrifying beings. For example: a particular demon might be bound to a certain area, so the player could escape the demon by crossing some threshold (with that demon, and others, actively impeding progress and giving chase).

Satan in particular should not be killed. If it were my choice, I'd end the game by letting the player seemingly make headway in a battle against Satan, then proving the devil to be far superior in might and, in the end, apparently victorious. When the player seems defeated, that's when God reaches into Hell to deliver him. This ensures Satan, the game's final enemy, is as terrifying as possible. It also respects Dante Alighieri's belief, clearly represented in his tale, that he is saved by God and not himself. It would be a fresh game experience for most players. And finally, it could make for an exceptionally powerful story experience. In fact, I would have the player rescued by cherubs or children. In Christian theology (Dante's theology), the youngest and most innocent child could not be touched by Satan himself so long as God protects the child. That's a powerful image: a fearless, smiling young child ignores the demonic ruler of Hell as he or she takes the hand of the player's character and leads the player up a white stairway to Heaven.

For those epic enemies which are mortal, ensure the player must make use of more than strategy to win. Obviously, you don't want to stack the deck too heavily against the player, but ensure that the encounter retains some unpredictability even after the player gains an understanding of what that particular enemy's strengths and habits are.

Introduce "enemies" which can neither harm nor be harmed by the player. A malicious ghost beyond one's ability to affect is a frightening experience.

Remember that Satan is known as The Deceiver. Undermine the player's trust in dialog, in companions, and even in basic senses. For example: spiders might suddenly spill out from Dante's armor and crawl across his body, causing Dante to react in panic... and then the spiders are suddenly gone (they were just an illusion). Or a damned soul might rest still while calling out to the player in a pathetic tone with words of remorse and a plea for aid, then transform and attack the player if he gets too close.

Obviously, I could go on for days, so I'll stop here. :)

civilians and facing mistakes

I'm happy to see civilians running around in Modern Warfare 2's latest trailer, as well as fighters in civilian clothes.

I can only guess the scenes with people running away are during battles and not between. If there are civilians present during battles, with actual risk of civilian casualties, I consider that a big leap forward for first-person war games. War is never just between soldiers.

I have played games before in which it was possible to shoot the wrong people and be punished for it. Anyone who has played the Call of Duty games has been forced to restart from a checkpoint after shooting an ally. I believe that's the wrong way to punish such mistakes.

A reset means the offending action never happened. It's like a deleted scene or an expunged record. For mistakes to truly matter, they must remain part of the player's journey, an irrevocable moment which demands reflection and penance. If that moment can be erased, even in a punishment like a reset, then the player is not made to face it and reflect.

Civilians are important to war simulations (as opposed to arcade shooters) because they epitomize the moral complexity and uncertainty of war. Some civilians are hostile but not threatening. Some are dangerous in their foolhardy support. Some who would run away and seem harmless are dangerous, not by will, but due to the information they possess that enemies could gain by interrogation.

Fun over simulation -- I understand. But such complications of real warfare can make settings and stories infinitely more compelling, and potentially add replayability. Civilians are not a vital element for war games, but represent enormous untapped potential.

kinetics

I bought Sacred 2 for my 360 when it was released, and traded it back in only a few days later. I didn't even want to make use of my money before getting rid of it. So I agree with GameTrailers' review, as usual. But I'm surprised kinetics was never mentioned.

I call it kinetics, but there might be a better term. What I'm referring to is the feel of action: the way animations and sound effects combine to bring actions to life.

Timing is key to kinetics. Imagine a baseball game. When a player swings his bat, is the animation slow or fast? Either could be fun, but the speed affects the feel. Now consider the sound. Is the crack of the bat against ball perfectly synched with the animation? Or does the sound come a split-second before or after the animation?

Now imagine there is no sound when bat meets ball. That would suck, wouldn't it? No game would forget to include that sound. But what about surrounding sounds? Does the crowd cheer when the batter gets a hit? Does the crowd's noise change at all depending on whether it's a home run, a grounder, or a bunt? What about the player's footsteps as he's running to 1st base? Does they get any sound?

Does every player throw or drop his bat the same way? Does every player swing the same way? Do they all run with the same gait?

The point is that even simple actions can have surprising potential for accompanying sounds and animations. And, generally, the more visual and aural details included, the more compelling an action feels.

So back to Sacred 2. Play that game, Play Diablo 2, and tell me which has better kinetics. Compared to combat in Diablo 2, combat in Sacred 2 feels like flag football. There are more sounds, including reactive lines of dialogue (not commentary... screams, yelps, and such), and animations are quick enough to keep combat tense and frantic. Titan Quest also fails by slowing animations and creating a slight disconnect between player attacks and enemy deaths and defense. That one's a good game, but the timing is slightly off and dying enemies often float in the air a moment.

All games are limited by time and expense. But pinpoint the actions your players will employ most often and devote as many sound effects and animations to those actions as possible. Other parts of your games can be sketched simulations, but core actions should be represented as fully as possible.

better quick-time events

When I heard that Dante's Inferno will be full of quick-time events (QTE), I sighed in disappointment. I later made a comment that QTE are often fake participation. I'll explain what I meant by that.

I'm not completely dismissing QTE as a viable game feature. How could I? One of the industry's most popular game series, God of War, has thrived on them. I've never played God of War, since I never owned a Sony console (due to limited money -- not that I've never wanted one). I can't comment on that game. I've only experienced QTE in other games, and those experiences haven't been fun.

What I object to isn't the basic idea of simple actions that facilitate a cinematic experience, like climbing a gigantic monster. What I object to is purely reactive button-mashing... a complete disconnect between what the player is doing and what is happening on screen.


There's a great scene in one of my favorite movies, Fierce Creatures, where a zoo's manager leads his zookeepers to a large cage with a panda sitting amid the bamboo. The zookeepers coo and smile... until they realize it's an animatronic panda! It's in a cage for viewing as if it were a real animal, but it's really just a robot. The ensuing conversation goes something like this:

Staff: "You can't put an animatronic animal in a zoo!"
Manager: "Why not? It gave you a thrill."
Staff: "But it's not a real thrill, is it? It's artificial!"
Manager: "Having pandas in England is artificial."

The zoo manager clearly has a good point. We could fill our zoos with fake-but-convincing robots and there would still be a thrill to be had by audiences. So why don't we? First, because we value truth, and people shouldn't be intentionally fooled unless they want to be (like with magic shows). And second, because real animals can offer a grander, better experience.


Quick-time events, like any other design concept, can take many forms. The QTE that I've seen is basically like that robotic panda in the zoo. By making the player react to a series of random button requests ("Press X! Press Y! Press X!") to unlock parts of a scripted animation, these games are faking participation, in a sense. The player's button combos have no real relationship to the character's actions. Players are just jumping through hoops.

In such games, participation isn't really a significant source of enjoyment. The player's thrill isn't from the whack-a-mole action... it's from whatever epic event that action unlocks. Seeing my character climb on the back of a huge beast and stab it in the eye -- that's awesome. But while I'm concentrating on reacting to random button prompts, I'm not watching the monster. The experience is schizophrenic. The player is distanced from the action, rather than given opportunities for true engagement.

So how would I do it? What's a better way?

One example of making quick-time events truly participatory would be to mimic Assassin's Creed's acrobatic system and place the grapple points on live enemies, rather than on structures. In Assassin's Creed, every building has been strategically covered by the designers with edges and objects which the player's character can grab onto. If monsters and such were designed with grappling points like this, then gameplay could be designed to let players climb them in a dynamic, intuitive, and player-directed way.

That sort of use of QTE means each player can have a unique and personal experience based on individual decisions and circumstances.

One player might go up the giant's arm, another up the back, another latching onto its weapon or facial horn when it attacks, etc. The enemies could be capable of shaking the player off, grabbing him, or crushing him against a wall... thereby making the player's anticipation of these actions and scenarios part of the gameplay.

For example, the player's character might climb on a monster's back. The monster responds by trying to slam its back against some rocks. The player sees this coming and quickly shifts the monster's head or arm. He stabs the monster in the neck. The monster howls in pain and reaches to grab the player, but the player shifts again to the monster's back and stabs it again there.

The game might even get really crazy and allow another, smaller monster to see the player on the giant's back and climb onto the giant's back as well, trying to bite the player.

Anyway, that's just one way quick-time events could be implemented that would allow players to truly participate in the events and never lose focus on the real experience: the enemies and setting. Hopefully, Dante's Inferno will surprise me with something like that.

what RPGs could learn from CoD4

One of Call of Duty 4's best features is its encouragement of variation through the Barracks and experience points. You can rank up without ever using more than one weapon, but there are bonuses to be had in trying many weapons. I'm not usually an achievement-oriented gamer, but I try to get every accomplishment with every weapon in that game.

The most experimentation a typical RPG encourages is swapping between melee and ranged attacks. But they could use a model similar to CoD4's. Instead of making every weapon a separate skill path, you could just have weapon upgrades be unlocked through use and encourage (without demanding) the player to try something new from time to time.

That applies to single-player as well as multiplayer. But, now that I think about it, I'm surprised I've never seen a fantasy battleground game (ala LOTR: Conquest) with weapon and skill variety similar to Call of Duty 4. Instead of ammo, melee weapons could have durability stats and eventually break... forcing the player to either switch weapons or pick up whatever's lying on the ground where another player fell. It doesn't take much imagination to see how CoD4's multiplayer could be adapted to many settings and scenarios.

In any case, my point is that RPGs shouldn't always expect players to stick with a single weapon class. It's feasible for all skills (like Perks) to be gear-agnostic. The same player may prefer different weapons and gear for different scenarios. And, of course, variation can keep gameplay fresh and enjoyable.