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.
Showing posts with label gear. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gear. Show all posts
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, October 02, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, August 17, 2009
purchases and drops
I've been playing Mass Effect again, after re-buying it through Games on Demand (partially to test the service), and I noticed something common in games that annoys me. I can purchase items, but the same items are commonly dropped as loot. Half the time I buy something, I find that same item not long after. In effect, I'm paying for early access, rather than actual ownership.
Should loot and purchasable items be the same? It's a question often asked in regard to MMOs, but it should be considered for other games as well. Actually, the MMO question is usually "Which should be better?", a follow-up to the one I pose.
How might a player act if he knows purchasable items appear as drops, too?
On the one hand, the player might hoard his money, as I do. He might ignore the stores almost entirely until he can afford those few epic store items that don't drop. In this case, the store is almost pointless to include (assuming the game doesn't allow the player to lose items by death or failure).
On the other hand, the player might spend freely. Now, the store is fun, but the loot loses its value since the player usually has what he wants already when something drops. Or the player is disappointed whenever he finds he has "wasted" money on something that drops shortly after.
It makes sense to me to make purchasable items and looted items different, because they seem to interfere with each other otherwise.
One way to do this is to divide sale items and loot categorically (ex: armor is looted, but armor augments and customizations must be purchased). But I'm sure there are many possible avenues.
Should loot and purchasable items be the same? It's a question often asked in regard to MMOs, but it should be considered for other games as well. Actually, the MMO question is usually "Which should be better?", a follow-up to the one I pose.
How might a player act if he knows purchasable items appear as drops, too?
On the one hand, the player might hoard his money, as I do. He might ignore the stores almost entirely until he can afford those few epic store items that don't drop. In this case, the store is almost pointless to include (assuming the game doesn't allow the player to lose items by death or failure).
On the other hand, the player might spend freely. Now, the store is fun, but the loot loses its value since the player usually has what he wants already when something drops. Or the player is disappointed whenever he finds he has "wasted" money on something that drops shortly after.
It makes sense to me to make purchasable items and looted items different, because they seem to interfere with each other otherwise.
One way to do this is to divide sale items and loot categorically (ex: armor is looted, but armor augments and customizations must be purchased). But I'm sure there are many possible avenues.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
earning vs taking
I've been playing Mercenaries 2 the past couple days. One interesting feature is how allied and employer factions are in possession of resources you need, and you can take those resources at any time. By completing missions for those allies, you can earn rewards like special airdrops. But you can also take oil and money from them, albeit angering them in the process.
It reminds me of Neverwinter Nights. In that game, some NPCs offered quests or items, but you could also earn experience points by killing them. One reward could replace the other, or you could find ways to achieve both.
In any case, it can be a fun scenario when an NPC or faction has resources the player can only obtain by force and opposition. It's particularly interesting when the game challenges the player to stick to good and friendly actions, because evil is the easier way.
It reminds me of Neverwinter Nights. In that game, some NPCs offered quests or items, but you could also earn experience points by killing them. One reward could replace the other, or you could find ways to achieve both.
In any case, it can be a fun scenario when an NPC or faction has resources the player can only obtain by force and opposition. It's particularly interesting when the game challenges the player to stick to good and friendly actions, because evil is the easier way.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Borderlands preview
If there's one game I was hoping to hear more about at E3, it's Borderlands. Gearbox is combining so many things I love: First-Person Shooter combat, Diablo-style loot, a vast open world, vehicles, monsters, dynamic enemies, RPG classes with skill customization, choice in story, etc. This gives every indication of being an awesome, long-lasting game that offers players surprising and personal experiences.
I strongly recommend this site called E3 Feed for finding E3 news on the games you're interested in. I've used it to comb through all the previews and interviews I could find on Borderlands, and I'm going to try to consolidate that information here so that you can see why I'm excited about this one.
The game's tone is both serious and silly. There can be spiders leaping at your face, and then there's fishing by grenade. The revamped art style has apparently helped to allow more lighthearted gameplay.
Borderlands is set on a planet called Pandora, where a massive treasure hold called The Vault has long been rumored to exist. The player chooses between one of four mercenaries who have just arrived on Pandora to find this treasure. The locals don't like you, and neither does the wildlife. Gameplay is mostly about going around killing stuff with unique weapons and chosen skills in search of more unique weapons and new encounters.
The characters you can choose between are Brick the bruiser, Roland the soldier, Lilith the siren, and Mordecai the hunter. Brick is a brawler. Gearbox's Randy Pitchford compares Roland to the Master Chief from Halo, and says he can deploy a shield with a turret on it. Lilith can "phase walk", making her invisible until she appears in the heart of enemies to release an explosion. And Mordecai is a "master sniper" with a big falcon-like creature he can send at enemies. Whichever character you select, you will level that character up RPG-style, selecting skills to develop him or her as you wish. Though I'm not 100% certain, it seems aiming is unaffected by statistics and is entirely based on player skill.
Weapons variation is similar to that in Diablo 2, with the game generating items on the fly. Even the developers are surprised by some of the weapons the players will use (that video is from January, by the way). You'll see things in this game you've never seen, like healing turrets and even healing sniper shots. Imagine your group's medic healing from far outside the firefight.
Gearbox is trying to make enemies dynamic as well. For example, that ShackNews article points out that some spiders will leap at you while others will roll toward you. There will be especially powerful versions of creatures, like the "hero" mobs of Diablo 2. From the Gamespot preview:
This game is as much about exploration as it is about action and achievement. And, like Oblivion, the world repopulates itself with creatures and other enemies as you kill them. From GameSpy:
Borderlands is coming to the Xbox 360, PC, and PS3... this year, the devs expect. I think you understand now why this game is so high on my list. Not many games offer many months' worth of fresh gameplay, but Borderlands looks like it might do just that. Here's hoping Gearbox succeeds.
I strongly recommend this site called E3 Feed for finding E3 news on the games you're interested in. I've used it to comb through all the previews and interviews I could find on Borderlands, and I'm going to try to consolidate that information here so that you can see why I'm excited about this one.
The game's tone is both serious and silly. There can be spiders leaping at your face, and then there's fishing by grenade. The revamped art style has apparently helped to allow more lighthearted gameplay.
Borderlands is set on a planet called Pandora, where a massive treasure hold called The Vault has long been rumored to exist. The player chooses between one of four mercenaries who have just arrived on Pandora to find this treasure. The locals don't like you, and neither does the wildlife. Gameplay is mostly about going around killing stuff with unique weapons and chosen skills in search of more unique weapons and new encounters.
The characters you can choose between are Brick the bruiser, Roland the soldier, Lilith the siren, and Mordecai the hunter. Brick is a brawler. Gearbox's Randy Pitchford compares Roland to the Master Chief from Halo, and says he can deploy a shield with a turret on it. Lilith can "phase walk", making her invisible until she appears in the heart of enemies to release an explosion. And Mordecai is a "master sniper" with a big falcon-like creature he can send at enemies. Whichever character you select, you will level that character up RPG-style, selecting skills to develop him or her as you wish. Though I'm not 100% certain, it seems aiming is unaffected by statistics and is entirely based on player skill.
Weapons variation is similar to that in Diablo 2, with the game generating items on the fly. Even the developers are surprised by some of the weapons the players will use (that video is from January, by the way). You'll see things in this game you've never seen, like healing turrets and even healing sniper shots. Imagine your group's medic healing from far outside the firefight.
Gearbox is trying to make enemies dynamic as well. For example, that ShackNews article points out that some spiders will leap at you while others will roll toward you. There will be especially powerful versions of creatures, like the "hero" mobs of Diablo 2. From the Gamespot preview:
Groups of enemies, like loot drops, are procedurally generated, so you never know quite what you're going to get. You could get a timid pack of pup skags with a few adults escorting them. Or you could run afoul of a fierce pack of adults with a spitter thrown in for good measure. The pack we saw was headed up by a "Badass Fire Skag." Yes, that is what it is actually called.The game also includes vehicles, which can be customized. And yes, you can fight in those vehicles:
This game is as much about exploration as it is about action and achievement. And, like Oblivion, the world repopulates itself with creatures and other enemies as you kill them. From GameSpy:
One mission we saw involved a team of players cooperatively taking over a factory yard filled with bandits in order to detonate a pipeline, with frantic gunfire flying everywhere. In a nod to one of Borderlands' other inspirations, World of Warcraft, raid scenarios like this can be replayed infinitely as a nice diversion from the main story's progression.Borderlands will supposedly offer the sort of co-op gamers had hoped to find in games like Fable 2. You will be able to take your single-player mode character into another player's campaign. That's the complete open world with all of your character customizations and loot. And because the action is FPS, a level 1 character can group with a level 20 and still have fun. Up to four players can play together online, and two offline. You'll decide for yourself how to divide loot.
Borderlands is coming to the Xbox 360, PC, and PS3... this year, the devs expect. I think you understand now why this game is so high on my list. Not many games offer many months' worth of fresh gameplay, but Borderlands looks like it might do just that. Here's hoping Gearbox succeeds.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
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.
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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
pots vs chests
Apparently, Blizzard developers have at least had internal discussions about treasure chests and keys. It's not a debate that must be limited to fantasy games. Lockers, desks, and ammo crates often perform the same role in realistic FPS games. The essential question is this: When loot is part of gameplay, is it better to control supplies by distribution or by access?
Keys and hacks are methods of access control. The player might be able to see where the loot is stored, but he cannot access that loot because the container is locked. Supply is determined by skill (such as hacking ability) or by meta-loot (such as keys).
Unlocked or open containers are methods of distribution control. If the player can see it, the player can get it. Supply is determined by the frequency and locations of containers.
Which would you use? or would you use a combination of the two?
Fable 2 has locked chests requiring silver keys to open, with silver keys hidden in fixed locations around the gameworld. This has two benefits: (1) the player is encouraged to explore, and (2) anticipation is allowed to build before loot is acquired. Unfortunately, I don't recall any loot in those chests being that spectacular, so the lack of access is more disappointing than exhilirating. And searching for silver keys rarely, if ever, leads to other rewards (even aesthetic rewards, like a striking view).
Diablo 2 has both locked and unlocked containers, with keys acquirable by drop and by purchase. The main problems here are: (1) keys are so common and cheap as to be mundane, and (2) locked chests don't always provide better loot than unlocked containers. Again, keys don't seem to be much fun.
Fallout 3 and Oblivion make unlocking loot containers a skill. The result is that loot frequency becomes an important variable to overall gameplay -- if you can't or won't pick/hack locks, then your character must make do with far less equipment and money. This is a better use of access control. Bioshock also uses this system, though in a more fluid way (allowing skill-augments to be swapped out).
I prefer distribution control. Diablo 2's gear and loot system, overall, is less about maintaining needs than discovering wants. It favors spectacular finds over mundane acquisitions.
Can an access system, like keys and hacks, be spectacular?
Keys and hacks are methods of access control. The player might be able to see where the loot is stored, but he cannot access that loot because the container is locked. Supply is determined by skill (such as hacking ability) or by meta-loot (such as keys).
Unlocked or open containers are methods of distribution control. If the player can see it, the player can get it. Supply is determined by the frequency and locations of containers.
Which would you use? or would you use a combination of the two?
Fable 2 has locked chests requiring silver keys to open, with silver keys hidden in fixed locations around the gameworld. This has two benefits: (1) the player is encouraged to explore, and (2) anticipation is allowed to build before loot is acquired. Unfortunately, I don't recall any loot in those chests being that spectacular, so the lack of access is more disappointing than exhilirating. And searching for silver keys rarely, if ever, leads to other rewards (even aesthetic rewards, like a striking view).
Diablo 2 has both locked and unlocked containers, with keys acquirable by drop and by purchase. The main problems here are: (1) keys are so common and cheap as to be mundane, and (2) locked chests don't always provide better loot than unlocked containers. Again, keys don't seem to be much fun.
Fallout 3 and Oblivion make unlocking loot containers a skill. The result is that loot frequency becomes an important variable to overall gameplay -- if you can't or won't pick/hack locks, then your character must make do with far less equipment and money. This is a better use of access control. Bioshock also uses this system, though in a more fluid way (allowing skill-augments to be swapped out).
I prefer distribution control. Diablo 2's gear and loot system, overall, is less about maintaining needs than discovering wants. It favors spectacular finds over mundane acquisitions.
Can an access system, like keys and hacks, be spectacular?
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
gear on the fly
I picked up Call of Duty: World at War yesterday. After only an hour or so of playing, I joined a friend in the multiplayer mode that involves fighting zombies from a boarded up house. There are a number of things that make it a lot of fun with friends, but one element in particular has me wondering if it could be applied to campaign gameplay.
The player gains points for killing zombies and repairing defenses. Headshots and melee kills award more points than regular kills. You spend these points on weapons during gameplay.
It struck me as a relatively novel system. First, you're purchasing aid while enemies are still coming at you, during brief moments of respite between attacks. Unlike in Bioshock or in other games, events are not paused as you purchase help. And second, you're earning the credits for these purchases constantly and automatically (not in the form of pick-ups or something similar). Combined, this makes for a fun and unique experience.
I'd love to see a similar system used in single-player or co-op campaigns. It could make a game wonderfully dynamic.
The player gains points for killing zombies and repairing defenses. Headshots and melee kills award more points than regular kills. You spend these points on weapons during gameplay.
It struck me as a relatively novel system. First, you're purchasing aid while enemies are still coming at you, during brief moments of respite between attacks. Unlike in Bioshock or in other games, events are not paused as you purchase help. And second, you're earning the credits for these purchases constantly and automatically (not in the form of pick-ups or something similar). Combined, this makes for a fun and unique experience.
I'd love to see a similar system used in single-player or co-op campaigns. It could make a game wonderfully dynamic.
Monday, October 06, 2008
creative customization
While reading George R. R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series and Martin's many descriptions of elaborate armor sets and weapons, I had to wonder why fantasy RPGs still don't offer gear customization like that. Many games allow customization via selection, but how many offer creative customization?
Certainly, there are good reasons that games which focus on the winning or discovery of items don't favor player creativity. But there are plenty of RPGs in which gear takes a backseat to other thrills. Neverwinter Nights, for example, adhered to D&D's bland item system (Halberd +1, Halberd +2, etc), but was still a fun and bestselling game. Oblivion had plenty of items, but also seems to focus on other goals.
I think games like Spore and The Sims have shown how popular creative customization can be. The outfit editor in Spore's tribal stage offers ideas for RPG gear editors, as do the clothing and tattoo stores of Saints Row and its sequel. And as those games show, creativity needn't exclude achievement. You can offer players new options as they advance through challenges or earn wealth in the game.
Why not? Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't seen this in RPGs.
Certainly, there are good reasons that games which focus on the winning or discovery of items don't favor player creativity. But there are plenty of RPGs in which gear takes a backseat to other thrills. Neverwinter Nights, for example, adhered to D&D's bland item system (Halberd +1, Halberd +2, etc), but was still a fun and bestselling game. Oblivion had plenty of items, but also seems to focus on other goals.
I think games like Spore and The Sims have shown how popular creative customization can be. The outfit editor in Spore's tribal stage offers ideas for RPG gear editors, as do the clothing and tattoo stores of Saints Row and its sequel. And as those games show, creativity needn't exclude achievement. You can offer players new options as they advance through challenges or earn wealth in the game.
Why not? Honestly, I'm surprised I haven't seen this in RPGs.
Friday, June 27, 2008
contextual powers
One of the great movements in design right now is contextual powers.
Assassin's Creed is a great example. A single player-command during combat (block + timed prevention strike = counterattack) can result in one of at least half-a-dozen moves. Which counterattack is seen depends on the relative position of defender-to-attacker and perhaps timing as well. Climbing is also contextual in Assassin's Creed. Simply direct Altair's movement and he'll use whatever actions are necessary to climb or leap that way. It's simple, fun, and occasionally surprising.
Fable 2 apparently makes spell-casting and ranged combat contextual as well. I'm anxious to see how that will work, but it also has me looking ahead to games of next year and beyond. How else might contextual powers be applied?
STORY
Game events are often activated by invisible triggers placed in the environment. When the player crosses a particular threshold or interacts with a particular object, a scripted event is set in motion. Triggers could also be used to activate variations in AI. When an AI character witnesses a particular event, crosses a particular threshold or such, then a change in personality occurs.
In Neverwinter Nights, child NPCs are invincible. If you attack one, the child will follow and attack your character relentlessly, eventually killing him. That's the closest thing I've seen to what I'm talking about, but that's still not it. That's basically a scripted event, a simple action command ("Kill the PC"). If it had been a change in AI, the children's perception of your character would change, but a number of subsequent events would be possible due to different personalities, different environmental circumstances, and other variables which combine on-the-fly.
ITEMS
I've long waited for contextual items. Item reward systems can be a lot of fun. I think they can be even more fun if some items are not what they appear to be, and if some items receive bonus powers in particular situations.
A broad item reward system has never been combined with a contextual combat system. It would be ridiculous to attempt as many attack animations as Assassin's Creed had for every weapon in a Diablo-type game. But breaking weapons down into a small number of classes (sword, axe, blunt, etc) would make this combo possible. In MMOs, it can be fun seeing how different characters' combat actions mix, but how much more so if there was significant variety within each character's optimal repertoire?
We've seen weapons and armor with effects or resistances that make them optimal for engagement with particular enemies. That's not the sort of contextual variety I'm praising here. In those cases, each item offers a single animation and three degrees of difficulty dependent on the enemy (ineffectual, average effect, superior effect). What I hope to see is different animations and other visible/audible effect variations independent of enemy type. Beyond mere show, I'm hoping for variety in type within one weapon.
When a player uses a "Frostbane" flaming sword against arctic inhabitants, he expects the sword to be more effectual and, though he might take some mild pleasure from pride in being smartly equipped, the experience is basically the same as using the weapon in any other scenario. On the other hand, imagine that the sword exhibits an effect type when fighting those arctic creatures that it doesn't exhibit elsewhere. What if the sword looked rather plain most of the time, but it glows hot as the player journeys further into the cold setting? What if fire suddenly erupted from the blade and was hurled at the enemy the blade was destined to fight?
Experiences like that don't just make players grin and think "cool...". Experiences like that make us wide-eyed, exhilirated, and we tell our friends about it days or even weeks later. It's more impressive, and it's feasible.
SKILLS
One of the cooler concepts I've ever read was something the Darkfall devs suggested about their Alfar race early in production (I don't know if the game still includes this scenario). The Alfar are ruled their god in physical form as a king, and that god is literally insane. All of their magic comes from him. So the spellcasters of that race have unpredictable magic. As the god's mood and sanity shift from one moment to the next, so does the potency of their spells. Sometimes their magic will sputter and fail, while at other times it is excessively powerful and brilliant.
While that's an extreme example, I think there's a lot of hope for similar variety within any particular skill. Variety can keep games fresh and replayable. It would be great if a skill gained early in a game could still surprise its user near the end.
How else might context be used to make games more fun?
Assassin's Creed is a great example. A single player-command during combat (block + timed prevention strike = counterattack) can result in one of at least half-a-dozen moves. Which counterattack is seen depends on the relative position of defender-to-attacker and perhaps timing as well. Climbing is also contextual in Assassin's Creed. Simply direct Altair's movement and he'll use whatever actions are necessary to climb or leap that way. It's simple, fun, and occasionally surprising.
Fable 2 apparently makes spell-casting and ranged combat contextual as well. I'm anxious to see how that will work, but it also has me looking ahead to games of next year and beyond. How else might contextual powers be applied?
STORY
Game events are often activated by invisible triggers placed in the environment. When the player crosses a particular threshold or interacts with a particular object, a scripted event is set in motion. Triggers could also be used to activate variations in AI. When an AI character witnesses a particular event, crosses a particular threshold or such, then a change in personality occurs.
In Neverwinter Nights, child NPCs are invincible. If you attack one, the child will follow and attack your character relentlessly, eventually killing him. That's the closest thing I've seen to what I'm talking about, but that's still not it. That's basically a scripted event, a simple action command ("Kill the PC"). If it had been a change in AI, the children's perception of your character would change, but a number of subsequent events would be possible due to different personalities, different environmental circumstances, and other variables which combine on-the-fly.
ITEMS
I've long waited for contextual items. Item reward systems can be a lot of fun. I think they can be even more fun if some items are not what they appear to be, and if some items receive bonus powers in particular situations.
A broad item reward system has never been combined with a contextual combat system. It would be ridiculous to attempt as many attack animations as Assassin's Creed had for every weapon in a Diablo-type game. But breaking weapons down into a small number of classes (sword, axe, blunt, etc) would make this combo possible. In MMOs, it can be fun seeing how different characters' combat actions mix, but how much more so if there was significant variety within each character's optimal repertoire?
We've seen weapons and armor with effects or resistances that make them optimal for engagement with particular enemies. That's not the sort of contextual variety I'm praising here. In those cases, each item offers a single animation and three degrees of difficulty dependent on the enemy (ineffectual, average effect, superior effect). What I hope to see is different animations and other visible/audible effect variations independent of enemy type. Beyond mere show, I'm hoping for variety in type within one weapon.
When a player uses a "Frostbane" flaming sword against arctic inhabitants, he expects the sword to be more effectual and, though he might take some mild pleasure from pride in being smartly equipped, the experience is basically the same as using the weapon in any other scenario. On the other hand, imagine that the sword exhibits an effect type when fighting those arctic creatures that it doesn't exhibit elsewhere. What if the sword looked rather plain most of the time, but it glows hot as the player journeys further into the cold setting? What if fire suddenly erupted from the blade and was hurled at the enemy the blade was destined to fight?
Experiences like that don't just make players grin and think "cool...". Experiences like that make us wide-eyed, exhilirated, and we tell our friends about it days or even weeks later. It's more impressive, and it's feasible.
SKILLS
One of the cooler concepts I've ever read was something the Darkfall devs suggested about their Alfar race early in production (I don't know if the game still includes this scenario). The Alfar are ruled their god in physical form as a king, and that god is literally insane. All of their magic comes from him. So the spellcasters of that race have unpredictable magic. As the god's mood and sanity shift from one moment to the next, so does the potency of their spells. Sometimes their magic will sputter and fail, while at other times it is excessively powerful and brilliant.
While that's an extreme example, I think there's a lot of hope for similar variety within any particular skill. Variety can keep games fresh and replayable. It would be great if a skill gained early in a game could still surprise its user near the end.
How else might context be used to make games more fun?
Thursday, September 27, 2007
More than numbers
I've mentioned before how the whole "Shortword +1, Shortsword +2" design leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Oh sure, we're way beyond that now. Now it's "Shortsword: 1-11 damage, Shortsword: 5-16 damage" and such.
The problem with this kind of design is that the difference between the two shortswords isn't felt or experienced as much as it's known. One shortsword plays just like the other. The upgrade in damage-dealing probably doesn't even mean that your foes are going down faster, but instead works as an access key to stronger foes (the same odds against tougher enemies, but the fights feel the same).
It's not enough for gear or skills to be diffferent; they must feel different to have a significant impact on gameplay.
The step after that one was to invent different types of damage. This sword and that sword do comparable damage, but this one adds fire damage while that one adds frost damage. If your lucky, that means the game creates a red or blue flash upon the weapon's impact, and maybe a sound effect to boot.
Diablo 2 took it a couple steps further.
First, the different elements actually equated different playstyles. If you prefer reliability, then you might choose weapons with fire damage for fire's predictable damage range (3-4 damage on a level 1 weapon). If you're a gambler or don't mind minimal damage sometimes if it means you can strike truly devastating blows at other times, then you might choose weapons with shock damage for it's wide range (1-8 damage on a level 1 weapon). Poison damage could be regularly devastating, but it takes time to work (say, 12 damage over 3 seconds). I admire this about the game, though I still don't like the number-crunching it promotes.
Second, Diablo 2 gave frost damage (and, oddly, only frost damage) both a significant visual bonus and a non-damage tactical advantage. If you kill an enemy with your frost coated-weapon, then there's a chance the enemy will turn to ice and shatter upon the final blow. That's a visual effect that is really noticed and actively enjoyed by the player. The tactical advantage is that an enemy chilled by your frozen weapon moves slower for a second or two. Again, this is something the player really noticed and actively enjoyed.
In most games, skills progress numerically in the same way as weapons and armor, but they tend to have more interesting visuals and tactical influence. M&M: Dark Messiah added interesting physical consequences to some skills, like letting enemies slip on the ice you just cast onto the floor. There are plenty of skills in various games that do things like trip up the enemy, but the interesting thing about the Dark Messiah example is that the skill could be used in multiple ways.
Could weapons and armor also be used in multiple ways?
Anyway, Craig's got an interesting discussion going on his site about equipment in RPGs. Honestly, I'm not sure yet how I would design my equipment system. But I can say that these are some of my goals:
There's probably something I'm forgetting, but how's that sound?
Oh sure, we're way beyond that now. Now it's "Shortsword: 1-11 damage, Shortsword: 5-16 damage" and such.
The problem with this kind of design is that the difference between the two shortswords isn't felt or experienced as much as it's known. One shortsword plays just like the other. The upgrade in damage-dealing probably doesn't even mean that your foes are going down faster, but instead works as an access key to stronger foes (the same odds against tougher enemies, but the fights feel the same).
It's not enough for gear or skills to be diffferent; they must feel different to have a significant impact on gameplay.
The step after that one was to invent different types of damage. This sword and that sword do comparable damage, but this one adds fire damage while that one adds frost damage. If your lucky, that means the game creates a red or blue flash upon the weapon's impact, and maybe a sound effect to boot.
Diablo 2 took it a couple steps further.
First, the different elements actually equated different playstyles. If you prefer reliability, then you might choose weapons with fire damage for fire's predictable damage range (3-4 damage on a level 1 weapon). If you're a gambler or don't mind minimal damage sometimes if it means you can strike truly devastating blows at other times, then you might choose weapons with shock damage for it's wide range (1-8 damage on a level 1 weapon). Poison damage could be regularly devastating, but it takes time to work (say, 12 damage over 3 seconds). I admire this about the game, though I still don't like the number-crunching it promotes.
Second, Diablo 2 gave frost damage (and, oddly, only frost damage) both a significant visual bonus and a non-damage tactical advantage. If you kill an enemy with your frost coated-weapon, then there's a chance the enemy will turn to ice and shatter upon the final blow. That's a visual effect that is really noticed and actively enjoyed by the player. The tactical advantage is that an enemy chilled by your frozen weapon moves slower for a second or two. Again, this is something the player really noticed and actively enjoyed.
In most games, skills progress numerically in the same way as weapons and armor, but they tend to have more interesting visuals and tactical influence. M&M: Dark Messiah added interesting physical consequences to some skills, like letting enemies slip on the ice you just cast onto the floor. There are plenty of skills in various games that do things like trip up the enemy, but the interesting thing about the Dark Messiah example is that the skill could be used in multiple ways.
Could weapons and armor also be used in multiple ways?
Anyway, Craig's got an interesting discussion going on his site about equipment in RPGs. Honestly, I'm not sure yet how I would design my equipment system. But I can say that these are some of my goals:
- Each effect feels significantly different from others. If "Fireball" gets an upgrade, then the upgraded version will look different and do different things.
- Old gear will exhibit new qualities when in contact with certain dynamics. Your "Bow of Lycan Hate" might act as a normal bow against most enemies, but it lights up and deals extra damage against werewolves... and when you run into a "named" werewolf/lycanthrope, it unleashes a devastating power you never dreamed it might have.
- The number-crunching is entirely hidden from the player. The strength of gear is revealed in more general terms in the item description, and many items will have depth which can only be revealed through use. Combine that with the dynamics system mentioned above, and this means that one player might have a very different impression of an item than another player... before hearing stories about the item's capabilities. Like with other aspects of the game, a player's experiences with items will be somewhat unique and his or her stories will excite other players with hints at potential future experiences (similar to what Darren called the horizon).
- Some skills/abilities will be awarded only through particular items. Find abilities which few, if any, other players have. I might even tie items and skills together in a way similar to Craig's idea in his comment on that article of his. Perhaps players will be able to invest in skills which increase the efficiency or otherwise alter a particular group of item effects. So if you acquire an item that offers shielding against fire damage, your skill might improve the shielding and even eventually reflect some of that fire damage back at the assailant... or transmute the fire into something else (like health).
- Players may know where a particular item might be found, but loot will typically be a surprise. Generally, items cannot be sought out by players. As said before, my ideal game is one more about discovery than effort. Past MMO experience do not apply... this is a very different kind of game.
There's probably something I'm forgetting, but how's that sound?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
