Apparently, breaking a site's terms of service might soon be considered criminal trespassing under federal law, as defined by a judge (they're legislators, too, these days). Zubon summed up the news perfectly, but I'd like to add one thing that's often forgotten: a law doesn't have to be reasonable or good to stand for decades in the courts. If the idea that breaking a site's TOS agreement is criminal trespassing sounds ridiculous to you, don't believe for a second that something ridiculous and unreasonable can't be made into law.
I have no idea what the judge will decide or what the response will be, but this is definitely worth keeping an eye on.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
GTA 4: initial impressions
I'm finally back. Sorry for the long hiatus, but I was staying with a 90-year-old and, like most 90-year-olds, she doesn't have internet. Life without internet (or even a computer!)... I could hardly remember what that was like. Really, it's not so bad. Try it sometime. It's like camping. ;)
Anyway, I picked up GTA IV last week and thought I'd offer my initial impression of the game.
I haven't played it in a while. Instead, I've been playing Call of Duty 4. That's partially a testament to how great CoD4 multiplayer is, but it also reflects my relative boredom with GTA IV. Honestly, I'm wondering if I should have bought it or just saved my money for the plethora of other great games being released this year (two of which I've already pre-ordered). If you haven't seen Zero Punctuation's review yet, you might want to watch that before reading further. Like most of his reviews, this one mentioned many of my own thoughts.
I both like and dislike the realism. I certainly love it in the visuals. Driving in the rain or fog is a thrill. I like the gritty story. However, I agree with most of the points Zero Punctuation made.
Being able to go bowling, play darts or play pool with another character is great. For a sandbox-focused game, more options is good. But Rockstar made a mistake by having those characters call Niko on his phone. That makes the world seem more real, but it also deters the player from enjoying the sandbox by constantly turning the player's focus toward the linear content. It's partially a problem of pacing. Sandbox adventures (meaning small series of explorations that the player subconsciously connects into stories) take time to develop, and the player needs time to become immersed in that exploration. The invitations to hang out by Niko's companions disrupt that exploration and prevent the player from connecting happenstance events into personal stories. There's not enough undisrupted time to wander through the sandbox and find one's own crazy series of events.
The TV channels are funny, but why do I have to sit in my apartment to watch? The billiards, darts, and bowling could have been designed so that the player could watch TV between turns. I'm a fan of world-type games, but who wants to roleplay a couch-potato? The TV stations should have been enjoyable while doing other things, as the radio stations are. There was more humor on the airwaves of early GTA games, but the music is still good. It would be nice if the radio turned down/off automatically when Niko answers his cellphone, but that's the sort of attention to detail that's often lacking in GTA IV.
The vehicle handling is awful. In this case, the move toward realism was a very bad idea. There's nothing quite likeracing creeping away from cops in second gear because your car can't handle turns at higher speeds. This is how your grandma would evade police. Perhaps Dukes of Hazard -style chases emerge with faster cars later in the game; but if that's the case, shouldn't driving be fun in the beginning of the game, too? Driving in older GTA games was a blast, but not so in this one. And wouldn't it be more fun if passengers responded to wild driving and accidents more like those in the intro scene of The Darkness demo than like old Miss Daisy yelling at you to slow down? This is GTA, afterall -- players should be encouraged to act crazily, not like prim ninnies.
The control scheme for gunfighting on the 360 is strange. There doesn't seem to be any reason the typical FPS setup wouldn't work, except for shooting while driving. And in that case, shooting while driving is a chore as it is, and should have been done differently. Wouldn't it be more fun to let a companion NPC or an AI for Niko handle the driving or shooting controls while I handle the other? Wouldn't a close-camera chase or gunfight like that be more fun anyway than combining the two into less visceral, less fluid experience?
I hate for this early-glimpse (many hours of play) review to all be negative, so let me reiterate that the visuals are impressive, the story is good, and add that pressing "B" while driving to activate a cinematic camera is an awesome idea (too bad Microsoft still stupidly fails to offer Xbox 360 gamers the ability to take screenshots). The bowling, darts, and (especially) pool are all extremely well designed, though I do wish pool and darts included the same swinging use of the thumbstick that bowling does (to add that visceral feel). The physics is great, but more for its applications to animation (pedestrians moving and getting knocked around, vehicles colliding, etc) than applications to gameplay (driving, gunfights, etc).
GTA 2 and Vice City were better games. They let the player off the rails immediately, kept the pace up, allowed wild and silly fun while wandering every which way, and strived to be over-the-top in gameplay more than in libertine shocks (ex: yes, the hookers in GTA IV are funny, but the production time would have been better spent on further dynamics in combat and driving gameplay -- i.e., content that improves the game's lifespan / replayability).
I'll put more hours into GTA IV at some point. But my early impression is that Saints Row is as good, and Saints Row 2 might end up being a better game. Hold out for that one, if you haven't already bought GTA.
I'm looking forward to trying out the game's multiplayer modes. Perhaps that's where GTA IV really shines... though that would be strange, considering that the GTA series has always been about the single-player sandbox.
Anyway, I picked up GTA IV last week and thought I'd offer my initial impression of the game.
I haven't played it in a while. Instead, I've been playing Call of Duty 4. That's partially a testament to how great CoD4 multiplayer is, but it also reflects my relative boredom with GTA IV. Honestly, I'm wondering if I should have bought it or just saved my money for the plethora of other great games being released this year (two of which I've already pre-ordered). If you haven't seen Zero Punctuation's review yet, you might want to watch that before reading further. Like most of his reviews, this one mentioned many of my own thoughts.
I both like and dislike the realism. I certainly love it in the visuals. Driving in the rain or fog is a thrill. I like the gritty story. However, I agree with most of the points Zero Punctuation made.
Being able to go bowling, play darts or play pool with another character is great. For a sandbox-focused game, more options is good. But Rockstar made a mistake by having those characters call Niko on his phone. That makes the world seem more real, but it also deters the player from enjoying the sandbox by constantly turning the player's focus toward the linear content. It's partially a problem of pacing. Sandbox adventures (meaning small series of explorations that the player subconsciously connects into stories) take time to develop, and the player needs time to become immersed in that exploration. The invitations to hang out by Niko's companions disrupt that exploration and prevent the player from connecting happenstance events into personal stories. There's not enough undisrupted time to wander through the sandbox and find one's own crazy series of events.
The TV channels are funny, but why do I have to sit in my apartment to watch? The billiards, darts, and bowling could have been designed so that the player could watch TV between turns. I'm a fan of world-type games, but who wants to roleplay a couch-potato? The TV stations should have been enjoyable while doing other things, as the radio stations are. There was more humor on the airwaves of early GTA games, but the music is still good. It would be nice if the radio turned down/off automatically when Niko answers his cellphone, but that's the sort of attention to detail that's often lacking in GTA IV.
The vehicle handling is awful. In this case, the move toward realism was a very bad idea. There's nothing quite like
The control scheme for gunfighting on the 360 is strange. There doesn't seem to be any reason the typical FPS setup wouldn't work, except for shooting while driving. And in that case, shooting while driving is a chore as it is, and should have been done differently. Wouldn't it be more fun to let a companion NPC or an AI for Niko handle the driving or shooting controls while I handle the other? Wouldn't a close-camera chase or gunfight like that be more fun anyway than combining the two into less visceral, less fluid experience?
I hate for this early-glimpse (many hours of play) review to all be negative, so let me reiterate that the visuals are impressive, the story is good, and add that pressing "B" while driving to activate a cinematic camera is an awesome idea (too bad Microsoft still stupidly fails to offer Xbox 360 gamers the ability to take screenshots). The bowling, darts, and (especially) pool are all extremely well designed, though I do wish pool and darts included the same swinging use of the thumbstick that bowling does (to add that visceral feel). The physics is great, but more for its applications to animation (pedestrians moving and getting knocked around, vehicles colliding, etc) than applications to gameplay (driving, gunfights, etc).
GTA 2 and Vice City were better games. They let the player off the rails immediately, kept the pace up, allowed wild and silly fun while wandering every which way, and strived to be over-the-top in gameplay more than in libertine shocks (ex: yes, the hookers in GTA IV are funny, but the production time would have been better spent on further dynamics in combat and driving gameplay -- i.e., content that improves the game's lifespan / replayability).
I'll put more hours into GTA IV at some point. But my early impression is that Saints Row is as good, and Saints Row 2 might end up being a better game. Hold out for that one, if you haven't already bought GTA.
I'm looking forward to trying out the game's multiplayer modes. Perhaps that's where GTA IV really shines... though that would be strange, considering that the GTA series has always been about the single-player sandbox.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
babies
My brother's got a 4-month old baby right now. A baby can do anything -- absolutely anything -- and everyone thinks it's the cutest thing they've ever seen.
Whoever designs the first Nintendogs-style baby game will easily have enough money to fund their dream game.
Let the race begin! ;)
Whoever designs the first Nintendogs-style baby game will easily have enough money to fund their dream game.
Let the race begin! ;)
Friday, April 25, 2008
afk... again
My internet access is sporadic right now, since I'm staying with someone without internet for the next couple weeks (yes, such people exist). Once all this travelling stops, I'll be writing every day again. In the meantime, I'll hop on a computer whenever I get a chance.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
guards, snipers, and surveillance
So I'm back from New York, wondering how my trip to see the Pope could be the basis for a post on game design. And the first thing that comes to mind is bodyguards.
Many games have them, though we don't typically refer to them as bodyguards. Instead, we might think of "boss" NPCs and their "minions" or "mini-bosses". Whatever you want to call them, NPCs protecting or following other NPCs is a common sight in video games.
During his visit to New York, Pope Benedict XVI was protected by an unprecedented net of security. I was fortunate enough to be allowed on the steps of the St. Patrick Cathedral during the Mass. To get there, we had to park many blocks away, because a wide area surrounding the cathedral was blocked off and heavily guarded by police and special officers. I had to show my ticket and photo ID three times before reaching the cathedral, as well as walk through a metal detector. I'm told that the CIA did a background check on anyone who had a ticket for that area, but I can't verify that. Once on the cathedral steps, I noticed dogs, police captains and chiefs, helicopters overhead, snipers on all surrounding rooftops, secret service, and plenty of security personnel I couldn't identify. Moving between designated areas required an escort. Oh, and the Pope's bulletproof limousine was escorted by plenty of other vehicles, of course.
So what from that could be applied to game design?
Many games have them, though we don't typically refer to them as bodyguards. Instead, we might think of "boss" NPCs and their "minions" or "mini-bosses". Whatever you want to call them, NPCs protecting or following other NPCs is a common sight in video games.
During his visit to New York, Pope Benedict XVI was protected by an unprecedented net of security. I was fortunate enough to be allowed on the steps of the St. Patrick Cathedral during the Mass. To get there, we had to park many blocks away, because a wide area surrounding the cathedral was blocked off and heavily guarded by police and special officers. I had to show my ticket and photo ID three times before reaching the cathedral, as well as walk through a metal detector. I'm told that the CIA did a background check on anyone who had a ticket for that area, but I can't verify that. Once on the cathedral steps, I noticed dogs, police captains and chiefs, helicopters overhead, snipers on all surrounding rooftops, secret service, and plenty of security personnel I couldn't identify. Moving between designated areas required an escort. Oh, and the Pope's bulletproof limousine was escorted by plenty of other vehicles, of course.
So what from that could be applied to game design?
- Snipers: Guards and henchmen in games are always near to the NPC they're guarding. In some cases, it might prove fun for the player to have to worry about guards out of sight or watching from afar. Such guards might be melee opponents, encouraging the player to defeat his primary target before those guards can finally reach his location. Or the player might need to select a strike position that hides him from snipers. There are countless ways to tweak this idea, but the gist is that the player must include distant objects in his awareness and cannot avoid being flanked during combat.
- Safe Zones: Security might involve a buffer zone between light security and maximum security. The scope or even existence of such buffer zones might be dependent upon player actions and success/failure. Buffer zones can be empty, blockaded areas or simply involve restricted access. If security personnel look like civilians, or otherwise harmless, then even a thick crowd be a difficult place to hide.
- Animals: Sometimes, dogs are the smart ones; even sheep. Animals often have sensitivities beyond ours (smell, vision, electrical signatures, infrared, etc.), so they can be a useful dynamic in games. It could be fun to make players worry about detection beyond visibility or noise. And we can't read animal expressions as well as our own, so great tension can be created by an animal's stare ("Is it just passing by? Or does it detect danger?").
- Choppers and surveillance: Players might have to worry about danger beyond the immediate. That a player has escaped might not mean that danger has passed, if his escape was tracked and his location is known. Surprises are fun. Allow the player to think he's home-free, then pounce on him with a sting operation. Or make him worry about whether or not he is being watched as he makes his way to the headquarters of his faction or some secret location.
- Hold the Line: Of course, players are not always on offense. With the improved collision detection of modern games comes the possibility of the player participating in a blockade. Players can act as covert guards and snipers, thereby challenged to sniff out danger before it reveals itself. Players can act as drivers and escorts, thereby challenged to adjust escape routes in reaction to dynamic circumstances.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
the seventh day
God rested on the seventh day of creation. Why? He's ominpotent, right? So why would God need rest?
He doesn't. The point of that part of the story, and the reason many of our grandparents did not work on Sundays, is that no work is complete until it is appreciated. A crop is worthless until it is eaten. A symphony is worthless until it is heard. Work has no inherent value. Labor without reward is nothing more than good intentions.
Players need time and encouragement to reflect on their experiences and accomplishments. Cinematics, as they appear today, do not accomplish this. While they effectively pause gameplay, they also require rapt attention. The player is still working. Even a cinematic flashback of the player's own choices and experience is not good enough, if the player must remain actively attentive and cannot pause/review the sequence.
Players need downtime. By that, I mean players need time that is free of any demand on them, that lets them relax and lets the mind wander, reflecting and absorbing those memories at its own individual pace.
The developer's challenge is to encourage such downtime (even demand it) without disrupting the player's immersion in the game. Old films sometimes had intermissions accompanied by music and a static picture. The music helped keep the audience focused on the movie setting, but the removal of dialogue and visual action allowed people to reflect (yes, I know that wasn't the primary purpose of those intermissions). Likewise, game intermissions keep the player focused on the game setting, but offer respite from interaction.
One of the things the original Everquest game did right (though, perhaps, too severely) was to force rest. Resting not only encouraged chatting between players, it also encouraged reflection on each and every experience. Honestly, I complained about it at the time I played EQ. Being used to console games, I disliked the forced pauses. But it grew on me, as it did on thousands. Notice that the resting EQ character (and so, also, the player) remains surrounded by the moving gameworld during rest.
I'm constantly talking about dynamics, and there's one more use for them: scenery. To simply absorb and enjoy one's surroundings is something we all experience at times. Smartly placed and presented, it's a pleasure that makes downtime not difficult to bear.
I'm posting this a little early because I won't have internet access tomorrow.
He doesn't. The point of that part of the story, and the reason many of our grandparents did not work on Sundays, is that no work is complete until it is appreciated. A crop is worthless until it is eaten. A symphony is worthless until it is heard. Work has no inherent value. Labor without reward is nothing more than good intentions.
Players need time and encouragement to reflect on their experiences and accomplishments. Cinematics, as they appear today, do not accomplish this. While they effectively pause gameplay, they also require rapt attention. The player is still working. Even a cinematic flashback of the player's own choices and experience is not good enough, if the player must remain actively attentive and cannot pause/review the sequence.
Players need downtime. By that, I mean players need time that is free of any demand on them, that lets them relax and lets the mind wander, reflecting and absorbing those memories at its own individual pace.
The developer's challenge is to encourage such downtime (even demand it) without disrupting the player's immersion in the game. Old films sometimes had intermissions accompanied by music and a static picture. The music helped keep the audience focused on the movie setting, but the removal of dialogue and visual action allowed people to reflect (yes, I know that wasn't the primary purpose of those intermissions). Likewise, game intermissions keep the player focused on the game setting, but offer respite from interaction.
One of the things the original Everquest game did right (though, perhaps, too severely) was to force rest. Resting not only encouraged chatting between players, it also encouraged reflection on each and every experience. Honestly, I complained about it at the time I played EQ. Being used to console games, I disliked the forced pauses. But it grew on me, as it did on thousands. Notice that the resting EQ character (and so, also, the player) remains surrounded by the moving gameworld during rest.
I'm constantly talking about dynamics, and there's one more use for them: scenery. To simply absorb and enjoy one's surroundings is something we all experience at times. Smartly placed and presented, it's a pleasure that makes downtime not difficult to bear.
I'm posting this a little early because I won't have internet access tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
afk
Just some forewarning: I'll be out-of-town for a couple weeks, starting tomorrow, and cut off from the internet at least until Monday. I'll try to post at least something in that time, but I'm not sure how much time I'll have on a computer.
we need bots
There's a good post about opponent bots over at Gaming Verdict.
This is one of those industry changes that has slipped under the radar, I think. My friends and I used to spend a ridiculous amount of time playing with bots in Perfect Dark on the N64. Super Smash Bros. is another great example. I'm always disappointed when games that could include bots don't.
COMPETITION
Gaming Verdict mentions the steep learning curve of gaming against human opponents. Just the other day, I was introducing a friend to Call of Duty 4 multiplayer; the game didn't take. He told me that it definitely seemed awesome, but someone like him, for whom games are only occasional recreation and whose reflexes are no longer lightning-quick, simply can't compete. And competing split-screen, just me versus him, is nothing like the gleeful chaos of our Perfect Dark experience.
All games have that problem with competition... not just FPS fragfests that require split-second reactions. I'm a fervent and lifelong gamer, but even I don't try to compete online with my favorite RTS game, Battle for Middle Earth 2. The several family members and friends with whom I've played that game prefer to team up against bots in skirmishes or campaigns.
Michael de Plater, the creative director of Tom Clancy's Endwar, has cited that upcoming game's use of voice commands as a way to counteract the advantage of knowing macros and complex controls, but difficulty of control isn't half the problem (in fairness, de Plater doesn't suggest that it is). Most competitive online gaming networks feel as if professional, college, and high school sports conferences were combined into one. More than a few factors separate the amateur from the professional.
CoD4 admirably matches pros with amateurs in team matches, but I think the amateurs more often feel more useless and outmatched than like they're contributing to the team. That's how my friend felt. That's how I feel sometimes... especially when another player clearly knows the map, and I don't. The greatest sense of accomplishment comes from winning; nearly losing, but winning. Losing occasionally or even half the time is no problem. Losing almost every time is not fun for most people (unless it's to a pretty lady, of course). Relatively few have the personality type that views nine losses as an acceptable price for one win, when he or she is only competing for entertainment. One can view his or her own mild contributions as meaningful contributions, but that is, perhaps, not an automatic or particularly common view.
The skill levels and playstyles of players are hard to quantify, so matchmaking systems only help so much. In fact, matchmaking is downright useless when players alternate between play-options. A player might be good with some weapons/units, but not others; with some factions, but not with others; on some maps or scenarios/modes, but not others. And suppose I've improved my skills in single-player mode since the last time I played multiplayer. Should I now have to begin facing easy human opponents, because I haven't yet proven myself to matchmaking system?
Furthermore, a person's playstyle and desired degree of investment in the game can change from session to session. A gamer can feel particularly competitive one day and be interested in only leisurely engagement the next (perhaps due to being tired after a long day's work).
Remember that the difference between a professional and amateur isn't just skill and experience, but interest. A lot of people play casual club sports -- not because they're not capable of more intense performance -- because they prefer a different pace, different style and rules, or do not consider the game a high priority.
Finally, though I'm generally a big fan of reducing predictability in games, bots can actually offer a deeper sense of strategy than human opponents precisely because they're more predictable. Half of battle strategy is anticipating your opponent's next move. When you're playing against hundreds or thousands, if not millions, of other human beings, then you rarely face the same opponent more than once or twice. As a result, you can only learn and adjust to the broad strategies that are common among players, and not the specific strategies of individuals.
Online multiplayer games are more tactical than strategic... the player must react to momentary events, rather than plan for organized movements. Bots (particularly, campaigns against bots) enable true strategy.
PAUSE
Another thing I had to explain to my friend about CoD4 multiplayer was why one of his matches was ended abruptly when "the host... left the game". Sure, there are plenty of inconsiderate players who cut a game off just because they didn't like the map or the way the match was going, but there are also players answering telephones or doors, being distracted by kids or pets, or having to unexpectedly end their play-sessions.
As Gaming Verdict points out, the ability to pause is easier with bot-driven games. Games could even be designed to automatically replace a player's character with a bot if that player has to leave the game temporarily. Life is unpredictable. A purely logical software program is more likely to understand that than a stranger.
I realize that developing fun and competitive AI is no quick or easy task. But remember that even simple AI can be fun when combined with the right dynamics (ex: Turok shows that even a dinosaur that simply runs straight for you is tough when there's also a soldier nearby shooting at you).
We miss our bots. Give them back.
This is one of those industry changes that has slipped under the radar, I think. My friends and I used to spend a ridiculous amount of time playing with bots in Perfect Dark on the N64. Super Smash Bros. is another great example. I'm always disappointed when games that could include bots don't.
COMPETITION
Gaming Verdict mentions the steep learning curve of gaming against human opponents. Just the other day, I was introducing a friend to Call of Duty 4 multiplayer; the game didn't take. He told me that it definitely seemed awesome, but someone like him, for whom games are only occasional recreation and whose reflexes are no longer lightning-quick, simply can't compete. And competing split-screen, just me versus him, is nothing like the gleeful chaos of our Perfect Dark experience.
All games have that problem with competition... not just FPS fragfests that require split-second reactions. I'm a fervent and lifelong gamer, but even I don't try to compete online with my favorite RTS game, Battle for Middle Earth 2. The several family members and friends with whom I've played that game prefer to team up against bots in skirmishes or campaigns.
Michael de Plater, the creative director of Tom Clancy's Endwar, has cited that upcoming game's use of voice commands as a way to counteract the advantage of knowing macros and complex controls, but difficulty of control isn't half the problem (in fairness, de Plater doesn't suggest that it is). Most competitive online gaming networks feel as if professional, college, and high school sports conferences were combined into one. More than a few factors separate the amateur from the professional.
CoD4 admirably matches pros with amateurs in team matches, but I think the amateurs more often feel more useless and outmatched than like they're contributing to the team. That's how my friend felt. That's how I feel sometimes... especially when another player clearly knows the map, and I don't. The greatest sense of accomplishment comes from winning; nearly losing, but winning. Losing occasionally or even half the time is no problem. Losing almost every time is not fun for most people (unless it's to a pretty lady, of course). Relatively few have the personality type that views nine losses as an acceptable price for one win, when he or she is only competing for entertainment. One can view his or her own mild contributions as meaningful contributions, but that is, perhaps, not an automatic or particularly common view.
The skill levels and playstyles of players are hard to quantify, so matchmaking systems only help so much. In fact, matchmaking is downright useless when players alternate between play-options. A player might be good with some weapons/units, but not others; with some factions, but not with others; on some maps or scenarios/modes, but not others. And suppose I've improved my skills in single-player mode since the last time I played multiplayer. Should I now have to begin facing easy human opponents, because I haven't yet proven myself to matchmaking system?
Furthermore, a person's playstyle and desired degree of investment in the game can change from session to session. A gamer can feel particularly competitive one day and be interested in only leisurely engagement the next (perhaps due to being tired after a long day's work).
Remember that the difference between a professional and amateur isn't just skill and experience, but interest. A lot of people play casual club sports -- not because they're not capable of more intense performance -- because they prefer a different pace, different style and rules, or do not consider the game a high priority.
Finally, though I'm generally a big fan of reducing predictability in games, bots can actually offer a deeper sense of strategy than human opponents precisely because they're more predictable. Half of battle strategy is anticipating your opponent's next move. When you're playing against hundreds or thousands, if not millions, of other human beings, then you rarely face the same opponent more than once or twice. As a result, you can only learn and adjust to the broad strategies that are common among players, and not the specific strategies of individuals.
Online multiplayer games are more tactical than strategic... the player must react to momentary events, rather than plan for organized movements. Bots (particularly, campaigns against bots) enable true strategy.
PAUSE
Another thing I had to explain to my friend about CoD4 multiplayer was why one of his matches was ended abruptly when "the host... left the game". Sure, there are plenty of inconsiderate players who cut a game off just because they didn't like the map or the way the match was going, but there are also players answering telephones or doors, being distracted by kids or pets, or having to unexpectedly end their play-sessions.
As Gaming Verdict points out, the ability to pause is easier with bot-driven games. Games could even be designed to automatically replace a player's character with a bot if that player has to leave the game temporarily. Life is unpredictable. A purely logical software program is more likely to understand that than a stranger.
I realize that developing fun and competitive AI is no quick or easy task. But remember that even simple AI can be fun when combined with the right dynamics (ex: Turok shows that even a dinosaur that simply runs straight for you is tough when there's also a soldier nearby shooting at you).
We miss our bots. Give them back.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
raid leaders aren't your friends
In response to Cameron's excellent post on Massively:
General George Patton once said, "I don't want my men to like me. I want them to fight for me." He was right. He got more out of his men than General Bradley, who used honey. But he wasn't talking about fun. He was talking about war.
Raids, in their current form, place unnecessary tension between fun and efficiency... and make me wonder if endgame MMO content is really about entertainment. A sense of achievement shouldn't be confused with fun. A raid (again, in the present form) is basically a group struggle focused on individual reward. Not all struggles are enjoyable.
Basketball and football are rigidly organized. The best coaches are always hard-nosed generals who only loosen up after victory (look at "Bear" Bryant, the coach with the greatest record in the history of NCAA football). But, likewise, those players often don't consider their sport fun during the games... only after the games, in retrospect.
Raids seem similar. During the raid, fun isn't a real value; but it might be considered fun in retrospect.The sad thing is that all raiding is that way. MMOs include content for a variety of interests and playstyles in their early levels. Why must the endgame always boil down to mechanical guild work and achievement-focused gameplay?
Also, soldiers should be more than mere cogs in a rigidly ordered machine (as they are in reality). Efficiently performing one's role shouldn't negate all individuality.
epic achievement in CoD4!
I try to keep this site solely about design and industry commentary, but I'm going to make an exception.
I was the top player in a Call of Duty 4 Ground War!
I know people do this all the time, but not me. I'm generally not a good competitor in any game, since my playstyle alternates between leisurely and reckless. But reckless is apparently the way to go in 9-on-9 Domination!
Anyway, I was the top player of the battle with 34 kills (courtesy of two airstrikes and a chopper), using the P90 in the Downpour map.
I've actually been hovering around 20 kills per match today, usually keeping me in the top 5 players per battle. It seems to be mostly about aggression. The only time I'm not moving is when I'm reloading (helpless). A good portion of the time, I'm running straight up to someone and stabbing him in the heart.
In the words of the great General George Patton: "My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the bastard's throat."
As thrilled as I am to have finally secured the top rank in a battle (I've hit second too many times!), that might not even be the coolest achievement of the day. In one deathmatch, my team was doing particularly poorly. Most of us were snipers and playing defensively... and dying. Finally, I decided we needed someone on offense. So I switched to assault rifle and went on the hunt.
I killed every person on the opposing team (5 or 6 people) in a matter of seconds. Half of 'em were holed up in one building, and I knifed them all in the backs. It was a glorious moment!
I was the top player in a Call of Duty 4 Ground War!
I know people do this all the time, but not me. I'm generally not a good competitor in any game, since my playstyle alternates between leisurely and reckless. But reckless is apparently the way to go in 9-on-9 Domination!
Anyway, I was the top player of the battle with 34 kills (courtesy of two airstrikes and a chopper), using the P90 in the Downpour map.
I've actually been hovering around 20 kills per match today, usually keeping me in the top 5 players per battle. It seems to be mostly about aggression. The only time I'm not moving is when I'm reloading (helpless). A good portion of the time, I'm running straight up to someone and stabbing him in the heart.
In the words of the great General George Patton: "My flanks are something for the enemy to worry about, not me. Before he finds out where my flanks are, I'll be cutting the bastard's throat."
As thrilled as I am to have finally secured the top rank in a battle (I've hit second too many times!), that might not even be the coolest achievement of the day. In one deathmatch, my team was doing particularly poorly. Most of us were snipers and playing defensively... and dying. Finally, I decided we needed someone on offense. So I switched to assault rifle and went on the hunt.
I killed every person on the opposing team (5 or 6 people) in a matter of seconds. Half of 'em were holed up in one building, and I knifed them all in the backs. It was a glorious moment!
Monday, April 14, 2008
can MMOs learn from GTA?
A long time ago, I told Bildo I'd explore what MMOs could learn from the GTA series. Well, here it is, finally.
Satire
The GTA games certainly contain more than their share of escapism. That's why kind-hearted, conscientious people laugh giddily while stealing cars and beating characters over the heads with baseball bats. It doesn't feel real.
On the other hand, GTA regularly alludes to the real world and participates in satire. Satire is about confronting real issues in entertaining ways. The most common form of satire is reduction to absurdity. A humorous spin can get considerations past people's natural defenses, and works much like myth in encouraging depthful thinking by providing only the right questions and the foundations of greater problems.
The point is: GTA alludes to real and controversial issues, but does so in a way that even people like me, who generally disagree with Rockstar's political and cultural views, still enjoy the games. MMOs don't have to avoid reality or serious issues. It's possible for reality and escapism to exist within the same game, with neither negating the other.
That said, there is such a thing as bad satire. Good satire presents things thoughtfully and without animosity, if also playfully kidding ("It's exactly the ethos our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, and then changed it [emphasis is mine]... which is what makes it sacred now"). Bad satire attacks a viewpoint without respect or honest and just consideration (like some of GTA's other jokes), thereby accomplishing nothing more than preaching to the choir and promoting disdain.
Humor
Of course, not all humor has to be satirical. Some game settings (like Warhammer) are more conducive to humor than others (World of Darkness), but humor has a place in all games.
The most memorable MMO quests I've ever experienced were two funny quests in EQ2. One had me running all over Freeport, passing along nonsensical messages because my character was mistaken for someone else and the quest-giver thought I was speaking in code and misdirections. It was hilarious. The other, at the Crossroads of the Commonlands, had me follow an NPC who claimed to hear ghosts so that the quest-giver could denounce her as crazy. When I reported that I, too, had heard the ghost, the guard thought I was crazy as well.
The wonder of humor is that it's the human way of finding joy in the most mundane and unattractive activities and situations. We're wired to search for happiness. The jokes and humorous situations that developers include are not just valuable in their own right. They promote that search for happiness and the use of imagination in players. If you make humor a significant part of your game (even dark humor, as might fit World of Darkness), then players will be encouraged to view game flaws with a smile and turn the least interesting activities into joyful occasions.
Quick, simple kills can be fun
In general, no, it's not fun when every encounter is quick and simple. But there are countless games that prove that gamers can take pleasure from one-hit kills and swarms of lesser enemies.
Some of the most enjoyable combat I ever experienced in MMOs was managing large groups of weaker opponents in Everquest 2 and City of Heroes. Soloing necromancers on rooftops was how I experienced tactical positioning and strategic knockbacks in CoH (knocking one or two enemies off the rooftop to even the odds until those enemies made their way back up). Fighting EQ2 thugs in The Sprawl, I was nearly overwhelmed by the challenge of tactically shifting my focus between enemies (kill the toughest or weakest first? which is blocking my escape route? which was weakened most by that last area-effect attack?).
As server technology improves, it's increasingly feasible to face players with bigger groups of lesser enemies. Experiment.
Toys vs games
A game has defined rules and goals. If you use the board and pieces included in a Monopoly box but change the rules and goal, then you're not playing Monopoly.
A playground merely provides objects which can be made into instruments of fun (toys) through a little imagination. A sandbox is the quintessential playground, because sand can be shaped into anything and the player might not be provided any ideas with which to begin.
The difference between toys and games often blurs, as it does with billiards. MMOs are games, but there are great advantages to including playgrounds in their design, as GTA does:
Satire
The GTA games certainly contain more than their share of escapism. That's why kind-hearted, conscientious people laugh giddily while stealing cars and beating characters over the heads with baseball bats. It doesn't feel real.
On the other hand, GTA regularly alludes to the real world and participates in satire. Satire is about confronting real issues in entertaining ways. The most common form of satire is reduction to absurdity. A humorous spin can get considerations past people's natural defenses, and works much like myth in encouraging depthful thinking by providing only the right questions and the foundations of greater problems.
The point is: GTA alludes to real and controversial issues, but does so in a way that even people like me, who generally disagree with Rockstar's political and cultural views, still enjoy the games. MMOs don't have to avoid reality or serious issues. It's possible for reality and escapism to exist within the same game, with neither negating the other.
That said, there is such a thing as bad satire. Good satire presents things thoughtfully and without animosity, if also playfully kidding ("It's exactly the ethos our founding fathers had when they wrote the Constitution, and then changed it [emphasis is mine]... which is what makes it sacred now"). Bad satire attacks a viewpoint without respect or honest and just consideration (like some of GTA's other jokes), thereby accomplishing nothing more than preaching to the choir and promoting disdain.
Humor
Of course, not all humor has to be satirical. Some game settings (like Warhammer) are more conducive to humor than others (World of Darkness), but humor has a place in all games.
The most memorable MMO quests I've ever experienced were two funny quests in EQ2. One had me running all over Freeport, passing along nonsensical messages because my character was mistaken for someone else and the quest-giver thought I was speaking in code and misdirections. It was hilarious. The other, at the Crossroads of the Commonlands, had me follow an NPC who claimed to hear ghosts so that the quest-giver could denounce her as crazy. When I reported that I, too, had heard the ghost, the guard thought I was crazy as well.
The wonder of humor is that it's the human way of finding joy in the most mundane and unattractive activities and situations. We're wired to search for happiness. The jokes and humorous situations that developers include are not just valuable in their own right. They promote that search for happiness and the use of imagination in players. If you make humor a significant part of your game (even dark humor, as might fit World of Darkness), then players will be encouraged to view game flaws with a smile and turn the least interesting activities into joyful occasions.
Quick, simple kills can be fun
In general, no, it's not fun when every encounter is quick and simple. But there are countless games that prove that gamers can take pleasure from one-hit kills and swarms of lesser enemies.
Some of the most enjoyable combat I ever experienced in MMOs was managing large groups of weaker opponents in Everquest 2 and City of Heroes. Soloing necromancers on rooftops was how I experienced tactical positioning and strategic knockbacks in CoH (knocking one or two enemies off the rooftop to even the odds until those enemies made their way back up). Fighting EQ2 thugs in The Sprawl, I was nearly overwhelmed by the challenge of tactically shifting my focus between enemies (kill the toughest or weakest first? which is blocking my escape route? which was weakened most by that last area-effect attack?).
As server technology improves, it's increasingly feasible to face players with bigger groups of lesser enemies. Experiment.
Toys vs games
A game has defined rules and goals. If you use the board and pieces included in a Monopoly box but change the rules and goal, then you're not playing Monopoly.
A playground merely provides objects which can be made into instruments of fun (toys) through a little imagination. A sandbox is the quintessential playground, because sand can be shaped into anything and the player might not be provided any ideas with which to begin.
The difference between toys and games often blurs, as it does with billiards. MMOs are games, but there are great advantages to including playgrounds in their design, as GTA does:
- Expansions unnecessary. In a playground, players expect to entertain themselves. Imagination is limitless, and is in need only of fellow playmates to inspire and approve ideas. Provide interesting settings, feed your player's imagination, and you'll have considerably less pressure to expand content through major additions. Carjacking in GTA never gets old.
- Being is doing. Character customization palettes (ala CoH), class/skill variables, and expansive loot tables will never match the potential breadth of variety and felt individuality that accompanies imaginative and discoverable action. Players feel like individuals when they are capable of unique actions. One of the things that turns GTA players into GTA fanatics is that they can tell their friends about gameplay experiences that aren't common, despite the millions of players. The more dynamics, the more potential for personal stories... and some dynamics are better than others. The single inclusion of sticky grenades in the Halo series has enabled countless personal and enthusiastic stories. To sum up: playgrounds offer more bang for your buck (are more cost-effective).
- Word-of-mouth is the best advertising. And the enthusiastic sharing of personal game experiences is word-of-mouth advertising. Look at the immense number of player-made videos that have popped up around Halo 3. What pictures are MMO players constantly posting on their websites? Character shots and guild raids (i.e, individually relevant experiences). The more you loosen the reins to allow players to "pause" the game to enjoy its sandbox content, the more you're encouraging personal exploration and the creation of shareable experiences. Just be sure to make the capturing and labeling of experience (screenshots, videos, etc) as simple and accessible as possible.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
gaming with stick figures
My dad has a fierce and unruly temper. I was shocked when my sister-in-law said she had never seen him angry, because I always saw him angry at least a few times every day. It could be from watching a football game he didn't care about, driving, someone interrupting or contradicting him, or dozens of other little things. He's angry all the time... except when entertaining company. He can control his temper; he just doesn't do it around family.
All people are that way. Our behavior and even thinking changes drastically from one social group to another. Different situations call upon different aspects of our personality, and cause us to emphasize one more than another. Each person has only one personality, but each personality contains many faces.
Sadly, game characters aren't that way. For all the progress that's been made in game stories, we're still seeing characters with just one face to show through the entire story. Game writers are still avoiding depthful personalities.
A depthful character isn't merely brave. He is brave in some situations and not others. The man who would readily risk his own life on the battlefield might be terrified of public speaking or mingling at a party. The socialite who effortlessly mixes with strangers might be less sure of herself when facing persons with whom she has deep relationships, like family. The warrior who could wrestle a lion might be afraid of the water, unable to swim.
A depthful character isn't merely loving. What one person considers tough love, another consider cruel. What one person considers acceptance, another considers willingness to condone the other's self-destruction. A depthful character has a specific and personal conception of what love is.
Don't try to offer depth like this through dialogue. Dialogue limits the player to the developers' own preferences and foresight, as Mass Effect did. The player's actions are certainly limited as well, but the fuzzier definition allows the player's imagination to reforge events closer to his or her true intentions. Generally, it not as important that the game know why I choose a particular action as it is that I know why. The story of any game does not exist wholly on the screen.
All people are that way. Our behavior and even thinking changes drastically from one social group to another. Different situations call upon different aspects of our personality, and cause us to emphasize one more than another. Each person has only one personality, but each personality contains many faces.
Sadly, game characters aren't that way. For all the progress that's been made in game stories, we're still seeing characters with just one face to show through the entire story. Game writers are still avoiding depthful personalities.
A depthful character isn't merely brave. He is brave in some situations and not others. The man who would readily risk his own life on the battlefield might be terrified of public speaking or mingling at a party. The socialite who effortlessly mixes with strangers might be less sure of herself when facing persons with whom she has deep relationships, like family. The warrior who could wrestle a lion might be afraid of the water, unable to swim.
A depthful character isn't merely loving. What one person considers tough love, another consider cruel. What one person considers acceptance, another considers willingness to condone the other's self-destruction. A depthful character has a specific and personal conception of what love is.
Don't try to offer depth like this through dialogue. Dialogue limits the player to the developers' own preferences and foresight, as Mass Effect did. The player's actions are certainly limited as well, but the fuzzier definition allows the player's imagination to reforge events closer to his or her true intentions. Generally, it not as important that the game know why I choose a particular action as it is that I know why. The story of any game does not exist wholly on the screen.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Voicechat vs music and sound
Over at Cuppy's latest blog, Tachevert makes an excellent point:
"I take music pretty seriously, and I’ve historically ALWAYS left music and sound on in games. Lately, though, I do find myself backing off on MMO music — especially if I’m raiding or otherwise trying to use voice chat. Without sound effects, though, I always feel as though I’m missing too many cues to the action."
Brent pointed out weeks ago that SOE will soon be integrating voicechat software into all of their games, and I expect other companies might be doing this as well.
Are voicechat and music inherently at odds? How about voicechat and sound effects?
"I take music pretty seriously, and I’ve historically ALWAYS left music and sound on in games. Lately, though, I do find myself backing off on MMO music — especially if I’m raiding or otherwise trying to use voice chat. Without sound effects, though, I always feel as though I’m missing too many cues to the action."
Brent pointed out weeks ago that SOE will soon be integrating voicechat software into all of their games, and I expect other companies might be doing this as well.
Are voicechat and music inherently at odds? How about voicechat and sound effects?
playing with fear
The faces of fear
In a college course I took on Gothic literature, I was taught that the readers of Victorian England distinguished between two types of fear: horror and terror.
Horror is the fear from which one flees. It is obvious, bold, and usually aggressive. The creature in the movie Alien is a horror, as most monsters are.
Terror is the fear that paralyzes. There is an element of mystery about it that makes the victim immobile with wonder and uncertainty. Ghosts tend to be terrors, as are cool-tempered murderers and vampires. Terror is often accompanied by what Freud labeled the uncanny... the feeling of something being strange but somehow familiar as well.
Which face to show?
In every aspect of a story's presentation, frightening objects are capable of being either horrifying or terrifying.
A harsh, guttural roar will cause a player to run from the sound. The muted gurgling sound of someone being strangled, on the other hand, will make the player cringe and look for the source of the sound ("Is it a strangling sound? or is it something else?" the player wonders). A snake-like hiss causes the player to recoil and prepare for danger. Heavy breathing and wheezing in the darkness raises the player's curiosity. Screams and whispers evoke different responses.
Slow movements and villainous smiles attract attention, while ferocious charges and the fiery collapses of structures tell the player to get moving. Gargoyles and malevolent artworks invite the curious eye, but spikes and electric sparks encourage one to keep away.
Quick, bitter bursts of angry mutterings raise one's defenses against imminent danger. Slow, graceful, philosophical eloquence invites the player to be caressed by beauty within the darkness. Words can contain fire, or they can contain poison.
Enemies can hunt the player with brute determination, glaring hatred, and barking bloodlust. Or evil can be clothed in charm and elegance, pursuing the player patiently, teasingly, even affectionately. I'm talking about AI here, by the way. ;)
Toying with expectation
Building a particular, fearful expectation in a player and then revealing the source to be harmless can have two effects: (1) it can make the player paranoid, or (2) it can make the player skeptical. Either result can be good. The paranoid player's tension makes even harmless surprises eventful and raises the severity of the scare when he encounters truly fearful beings. The skeptical player's mistrust and constant questioning of her own expectations monopolizes her thoughts and makes her slower to respond to real danger, potentially giving the danger a brief advantage.
An exhaust hose can sound like wheezing. A flap of plastic can sound like a scurrying animal. Scraping metal can sound like screaming.
Doll parts can look real until you see the stuffing. Water and veils can distort things beneath/behind into startling images (such as faces). Crystal and glass can make things seem bigger or smaller.
Language can be ambiguous (intentionally and unintentionally). Personalities and cultures can include misunderstood tone-of-voice, expressions, and customs (a player could be frightened away from allies by such customs, like an assertive tone mistaken for aggression).
NPC actions (scripted or AI) can be purposefully erratic or nonsensical. Why did that young girl gleefully leap to her death? Why did that madman stop chasing me halfway down the hall and start staring wildly up at the ceiling?
Rewarding the steel will
One fun feature to put in a horror-survival game might be to award morale bonuses to either the player or enemy depending on the player's initial reaction. If a monster leaps out of the darkness and the player steps back in response (gives into fear), then morale is given to the monster (or taken from the player). If the player immediately steps forward to face the threat, then morale is awarded to the player's character.
Certainly, this is better suited for sporadic one-on-one encounters than in situations with multiple, simultaneous attacks. But there are probably ways to spin the idea as well.
Adrenalin
One of the body's main responses to fear is the pumping of adrenalin, which has three primary effects: (1) vastly increased strength, (2) numbing of pain, and (3) increased perception and reaction time. It's the first and last effect that make adrenalin particularly fit for being a game feature.
A rush of adrenalin slows one's perception of time. Slow-motion cameras work by taking more pictures-per-second than regular cameras. The increased number of photos allows the perceived scene to be stretched out into a slower progression. Adrenalin does the same thing to the brain. It triggers a flood of chemicals to be released in the brain, thereby allowing it to capture experiences in smaller increments... making those experiences seem longer, slower, so the person can react more quickly.
In a game, imagine if dropping below a particular level of health triggered slow-motion, as well as increased strength and speed. Such a feature would not only offer the player one last chance to avoid death, but would also make those dying moments more intense and more memorable.
In a college course I took on Gothic literature, I was taught that the readers of Victorian England distinguished between two types of fear: horror and terror.
Horror is the fear from which one flees. It is obvious, bold, and usually aggressive. The creature in the movie Alien is a horror, as most monsters are.
Terror is the fear that paralyzes. There is an element of mystery about it that makes the victim immobile with wonder and uncertainty. Ghosts tend to be terrors, as are cool-tempered murderers and vampires. Terror is often accompanied by what Freud labeled the uncanny... the feeling of something being strange but somehow familiar as well.
Which face to show?
In every aspect of a story's presentation, frightening objects are capable of being either horrifying or terrifying.
A harsh, guttural roar will cause a player to run from the sound. The muted gurgling sound of someone being strangled, on the other hand, will make the player cringe and look for the source of the sound ("Is it a strangling sound? or is it something else?" the player wonders). A snake-like hiss causes the player to recoil and prepare for danger. Heavy breathing and wheezing in the darkness raises the player's curiosity. Screams and whispers evoke different responses.
Slow movements and villainous smiles attract attention, while ferocious charges and the fiery collapses of structures tell the player to get moving. Gargoyles and malevolent artworks invite the curious eye, but spikes and electric sparks encourage one to keep away.
Quick, bitter bursts of angry mutterings raise one's defenses against imminent danger. Slow, graceful, philosophical eloquence invites the player to be caressed by beauty within the darkness. Words can contain fire, or they can contain poison.
Enemies can hunt the player with brute determination, glaring hatred, and barking bloodlust. Or evil can be clothed in charm and elegance, pursuing the player patiently, teasingly, even affectionately. I'm talking about AI here, by the way. ;)
Toying with expectation
Building a particular, fearful expectation in a player and then revealing the source to be harmless can have two effects: (1) it can make the player paranoid, or (2) it can make the player skeptical. Either result can be good. The paranoid player's tension makes even harmless surprises eventful and raises the severity of the scare when he encounters truly fearful beings. The skeptical player's mistrust and constant questioning of her own expectations monopolizes her thoughts and makes her slower to respond to real danger, potentially giving the danger a brief advantage.
An exhaust hose can sound like wheezing. A flap of plastic can sound like a scurrying animal. Scraping metal can sound like screaming.
Doll parts can look real until you see the stuffing. Water and veils can distort things beneath/behind into startling images (such as faces). Crystal and glass can make things seem bigger or smaller.
Language can be ambiguous (intentionally and unintentionally). Personalities and cultures can include misunderstood tone-of-voice, expressions, and customs (a player could be frightened away from allies by such customs, like an assertive tone mistaken for aggression).
NPC actions (scripted or AI) can be purposefully erratic or nonsensical. Why did that young girl gleefully leap to her death? Why did that madman stop chasing me halfway down the hall and start staring wildly up at the ceiling?
Rewarding the steel will
One fun feature to put in a horror-survival game might be to award morale bonuses to either the player or enemy depending on the player's initial reaction. If a monster leaps out of the darkness and the player steps back in response (gives into fear), then morale is given to the monster (or taken from the player). If the player immediately steps forward to face the threat, then morale is awarded to the player's character.
Certainly, this is better suited for sporadic one-on-one encounters than in situations with multiple, simultaneous attacks. But there are probably ways to spin the idea as well.
Adrenalin
One of the body's main responses to fear is the pumping of adrenalin, which has three primary effects: (1) vastly increased strength, (2) numbing of pain, and (3) increased perception and reaction time. It's the first and last effect that make adrenalin particularly fit for being a game feature.
A rush of adrenalin slows one's perception of time. Slow-motion cameras work by taking more pictures-per-second than regular cameras. The increased number of photos allows the perceived scene to be stretched out into a slower progression. Adrenalin does the same thing to the brain. It triggers a flood of chemicals to be released in the brain, thereby allowing it to capture experiences in smaller increments... making those experiences seem longer, slower, so the person can react more quickly.
In a game, imagine if dropping below a particular level of health triggered slow-motion, as well as increased strength and speed. Such a feature would not only offer the player one last chance to avoid death, but would also make those dying moments more intense and more memorable.
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Press Start
Why?
Some traditions have oft-forgotten purposes. The "Press Start" screen is not one of those.
If I realize while watching the title screen that the game I've just booted up is not the disc I meant to play, then why the hell would I want to "Start" before I "Exit"? When I delete a save file, then alright... ask me, "Are you sure?". But don't ask me if I'm sure I want to play the damn game.
Just take me to Main Menu screen, already.
Some traditions have oft-forgotten purposes. The "Press Start" screen is not one of those.
If I realize while watching the title screen that the game I've just booted up is not the disc I meant to play, then why the hell would I want to "Start" before I "Exit"? When I delete a save file, then alright... ask me, "Are you sure?". But don't ask me if I'm sure I want to play the damn game.
Just take me to Main Menu screen, already.
Xbox Live: blatant mistakes
Let me preface this post by saying that Xbox Live is essentially an awesome service.
Is $15 per month greedy or perfectly reasonable? I have no idea. But I do know that being able to download demos and trailers of console games quickly and easily is phenomenal, the Arcade rocks (I have 12 XBLA games now), as does the ability to rent HD movies and TV shows digitally, and I don't mind paying something per month for what is generally a smooth and well-organized multiplayer experience (which includes online co-op for many games -- something not available to console gamers before). I have a lot of respect for Microsoft's game division and its online service.
That said, here are some mistakes that are blatantly obvious and inexcusable after being ignored for so long. I mentioned some of these problems on their official forums over a year ago. I know that some things aren't simple to fix when they seem so, but Microsoft has had so very long to notice these problems and address them.
Volume chaos
There's no universal volume level. Some trailers are louder than others; some games are louder than others. Why must I have to adjust my TV's volume between media so often?
A fundamental step in audio mastering is "normalization" -- increasing a song/track's basic volume to the maximum pre-distortion level, so that it plays at the same volume as everyone else's media and doesn't make listeners worry that the next thing they play might blast out their eardrums. This should be happening with everything on Xbox Live... either at the developers' end or at the host's (Microsoft's) end. Either way, it's Microsoft's responsibility to see that it happens.
No adjusting the queu
There's no user ability to adjust the order in which queued files will be downloaded. So if I'm already downloading a couple demos when I spot a trailer I'd like to watch, then I can't prioritize the trailer without cancelling the demos (and finding them again to download, hoping I won't see anything else I want to view or play before them).
Blockbuster Online, Fileplanet, Gamefly, and every other queu program I can think of includes a capacity for reorganizing downloads. Why not Xbox Live?
No 3-way private chat?
While playing Call of Duty 4, as many as 18 people are automatically included in the game's chat channel. So there's obviously no bandwidth barrier to allowing more than two people to speak in one channel. Yet only one person can be invited to a private chat channel. If I try to invite a second person, the first channel is closed and a new one is opened. Why?
Auto-logging the wrong profile
When I boot up my 360, I have it set to take me to the dashboard. It doesn't automatically log into my user profile, but instead waits for me to log in manually. And I don't mind that. What I do mind is that it automatically logs into the second/guest profile whenever I create one (when someone needs a profile to play with me offline, for example).
Let me repeat: it automatically logs into the guest profile, making me exit that profile before I can log into my own/main profile, but it doesn't automatically log into my main profile. Needless to say, this encourages me to delete my guest profile whenever one's not needed, so I have to recreate one whenever it is needed again.
A minor annoyance becomes a major annoyance when frequent.
Misleading advertisements
Before I bought NCAA Football '08, I checked Microsoft's official Xbox site to find out if it had co-op. Sure enough, the site listed co-op gameplay. What it failed to mention was that co-op in that football game, like so many games for the 360, is online only.
That's no minor qualification... I was more than a little disappointed when I got home with the game and learned that my family couldn't play with me, only against me. It effectively meant there is no co-op in that game for me, because the people who want to play with me don't own their own 360s, I don't know enough people with 360s to play a game with more than one other person at a time (two players online must play against one another), and -- like many gamers -- I don't find playing with strangers as fun as playing with friends and family. Catan is another game that surprised me by not having local multiplayer; only online multiplayer.
Co-op/multiplayer is "online only" or "requires 3-4 players" -- such a brief yet important description that fails to make it into so many of Microsoft's game summaries on the boxes and on their site. This is very basic information that shouldn't have to be found by scouring reviews somewhere. If it's not lying, then it's damn close.
Did I miss anything? Does anyone know a secret to opening 3-way private chat channels on Xbox Live?
Is $15 per month greedy or perfectly reasonable? I have no idea. But I do know that being able to download demos and trailers of console games quickly and easily is phenomenal, the Arcade rocks (I have 12 XBLA games now), as does the ability to rent HD movies and TV shows digitally, and I don't mind paying something per month for what is generally a smooth and well-organized multiplayer experience (which includes online co-op for many games -- something not available to console gamers before). I have a lot of respect for Microsoft's game division and its online service.
That said, here are some mistakes that are blatantly obvious and inexcusable after being ignored for so long. I mentioned some of these problems on their official forums over a year ago. I know that some things aren't simple to fix when they seem so, but Microsoft has had so very long to notice these problems and address them.
Volume chaos
There's no universal volume level. Some trailers are louder than others; some games are louder than others. Why must I have to adjust my TV's volume between media so often?
A fundamental step in audio mastering is "normalization" -- increasing a song/track's basic volume to the maximum pre-distortion level, so that it plays at the same volume as everyone else's media and doesn't make listeners worry that the next thing they play might blast out their eardrums. This should be happening with everything on Xbox Live... either at the developers' end or at the host's (Microsoft's) end. Either way, it's Microsoft's responsibility to see that it happens.
No adjusting the queu
There's no user ability to adjust the order in which queued files will be downloaded. So if I'm already downloading a couple demos when I spot a trailer I'd like to watch, then I can't prioritize the trailer without cancelling the demos (and finding them again to download, hoping I won't see anything else I want to view or play before them).
Blockbuster Online, Fileplanet, Gamefly, and every other queu program I can think of includes a capacity for reorganizing downloads. Why not Xbox Live?
No 3-way private chat?
While playing Call of Duty 4, as many as 18 people are automatically included in the game's chat channel. So there's obviously no bandwidth barrier to allowing more than two people to speak in one channel. Yet only one person can be invited to a private chat channel. If I try to invite a second person, the first channel is closed and a new one is opened. Why?
Auto-logging the wrong profile
When I boot up my 360, I have it set to take me to the dashboard. It doesn't automatically log into my user profile, but instead waits for me to log in manually. And I don't mind that. What I do mind is that it automatically logs into the second/guest profile whenever I create one (when someone needs a profile to play with me offline, for example).
Let me repeat: it automatically logs into the guest profile, making me exit that profile before I can log into my own/main profile, but it doesn't automatically log into my main profile. Needless to say, this encourages me to delete my guest profile whenever one's not needed, so I have to recreate one whenever it is needed again.
A minor annoyance becomes a major annoyance when frequent.
Misleading advertisements
Before I bought NCAA Football '08, I checked Microsoft's official Xbox site to find out if it had co-op. Sure enough, the site listed co-op gameplay. What it failed to mention was that co-op in that football game, like so many games for the 360, is online only.
That's no minor qualification... I was more than a little disappointed when I got home with the game and learned that my family couldn't play with me, only against me. It effectively meant there is no co-op in that game for me, because the people who want to play with me don't own their own 360s, I don't know enough people with 360s to play a game with more than one other person at a time (two players online must play against one another), and -- like many gamers -- I don't find playing with strangers as fun as playing with friends and family. Catan is another game that surprised me by not having local multiplayer; only online multiplayer.
Co-op/multiplayer is "online only" or "requires 3-4 players" -- such a brief yet important description that fails to make it into so many of Microsoft's game summaries on the boxes and on their site. This is very basic information that shouldn't have to be found by scouring reviews somewhere. If it's not lying, then it's damn close.
Did I miss anything? Does anyone know a secret to opening 3-way private chat channels on Xbox Live?
Friday, March 28, 2008
co-op storytelling
This is a reprint of my comment on a Write the Game article, to invite y'all into the discussion and to make it easy for me to find this discussion when I want to come back to it.
I think the best way the create co-op stories is for the game to provide feedback to the players as a group, rather than as individual players.
So, for example, NPCs will respond differently to you (trade prices, quest options, helpful or aggressive, etc) based on their approval or disapproval of who you’re grouped with.
Also, allow each player to have situations that do not fundamentally concern the other. For example, the two player-characters might be from different towns. One is begged to return home to save his village — a situation that concerns the other only because it is the home of the friend. If they save the town, the NPCs’ dialogue and actions are devoted mainly to just the one player (the local PC), but the experience of saving the town is a shared (group) story.The sense of charity that allows us to take joy from helping friends in real life does not disappear in games. It should be designed for.
Anyway, Fable 2 seems to be taking a large step in this direction. It can be played co-op, and one player can have very significant impacts on the other player’s world (such as killing/aiding the other’s family). When one player partially shapes the world of another, that’s a shared story.
I think the best way the create co-op stories is for the game to provide feedback to the players as a group, rather than as individual players.
So, for example, NPCs will respond differently to you (trade prices, quest options, helpful or aggressive, etc) based on their approval or disapproval of who you’re grouped with.
Also, allow each player to have situations that do not fundamentally concern the other. For example, the two player-characters might be from different towns. One is begged to return home to save his village — a situation that concerns the other only because it is the home of the friend. If they save the town, the NPCs’ dialogue and actions are devoted mainly to just the one player (the local PC), but the experience of saving the town is a shared (group) story.The sense of charity that allows us to take joy from helping friends in real life does not disappear in games. It should be designed for.
Anyway, Fable 2 seems to be taking a large step in this direction. It can be played co-op, and one player can have very significant impacts on the other player’s world (such as killing/aiding the other’s family). When one player partially shapes the world of another, that’s a shared story.
casual vs hardcore -- too simple
Tobold quotes an interesting observation about raiding which touches on the casual-vs-hardcore debate. I read yesterday that someone will be presenting at the IMGDC about that debate, seemingly to argue that "casual" MMOs are where the money's at.
I generally don't participate in the debate, because a worthwhile discussion is almost impossible when the participants can't agree at least on what they're talking about.
And the only times I find much agreement on the meanings of "casual" and "hardcore", the portrayals of gamers are clearly over-simplified... not quite to the point of being completely useless, but not far from it. The typical agreement among developers is to use available playtime as the measure, but there are often terrible assumptions about how that playtime is spent. Many people seem to think that those with a lot of playtime are all fanatical raiders while those with a little playtime solo and are equally obsessed with achievement.
Amount of playtime doesn't suggest play-style. If a raid takes over an hour to finish, then a person with less than an hour to play consecutively can obviously not participate fully; but that doesn't say anything about that player's desires and what sort of content (apart from time) attracts that player.
If you're going to emphasize time in the definition of "casual" and "hardcore", then don't always use games like Maplestory and Bejeweled to represent "casual" games, because games like Age of Conan and Halo 3 fit the bill just as well.
I generally don't participate in the debate, because a worthwhile discussion is almost impossible when the participants can't agree at least on what they're talking about.
And the only times I find much agreement on the meanings of "casual" and "hardcore", the portrayals of gamers are clearly over-simplified... not quite to the point of being completely useless, but not far from it. The typical agreement among developers is to use available playtime as the measure, but there are often terrible assumptions about how that playtime is spent. Many people seem to think that those with a lot of playtime are all fanatical raiders while those with a little playtime solo and are equally obsessed with achievement.
Amount of playtime doesn't suggest play-style. If a raid takes over an hour to finish, then a person with less than an hour to play consecutively can obviously not participate fully; but that doesn't say anything about that player's desires and what sort of content (apart from time) attracts that player.
If you're going to emphasize time in the definition of "casual" and "hardcore", then don't always use games like Maplestory and Bejeweled to represent "casual" games, because games like Age of Conan and Halo 3 fit the bill just as well.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
design masters:Paul Barnett
Monday, March 24, 2008
...and again (story in games)
Will it ever go away -- this silly assumption that the interactive storytelling should aspire to mimic linear models and methods? (referring to the Gamasutra articles that those blogs point to)
There are definitely multiple ways of including writing in games that make sense. Mass Effect and Final Fantasy are games driven by linear, dev-defined narratives, and have admirably pleased many gamers. But games like that represent a blending of mediums, and are really more film than game... just as those "choose your own adventure" books are a mixture of novel and game.
Blends like that are fine, but it saddens me that they are commonly considered the epitome of storytelling in games. It saddens me because games are fundamentally about interaction, and the influence of players on those stories is minimal. What effects players do have are limited to immediate dialogue, and have no bearing on the gameworld or the player's future experiences. And, perhaps more importantly, stories are hardly individual/personal.
The greatest strengths of this medium are its malleability and potential for personal relevance!
As I've said before, the works of Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are better models for the future of storytelling in games. Storytelling in games like SimCity, The Sims 2, Black & White, and Fable strives towards three major goals: (1) the player directs the story, (2) story is largely comprised of responses to unpredictable, emergent events, and (3) the game provides the setting via visual, auditory, and moral (value) feedback.
Anyway, I go into much more depth in this old (long) post.
...
There are definitely multiple ways of including writing in games that make sense. Mass Effect and Final Fantasy are games driven by linear, dev-defined narratives, and have admirably pleased many gamers. But games like that represent a blending of mediums, and are really more film than game... just as those "choose your own adventure" books are a mixture of novel and game.
Blends like that are fine, but it saddens me that they are commonly considered the epitome of storytelling in games. It saddens me because games are fundamentally about interaction, and the influence of players on those stories is minimal. What effects players do have are limited to immediate dialogue, and have no bearing on the gameworld or the player's future experiences. And, perhaps more importantly, stories are hardly individual/personal.
The greatest strengths of this medium are its malleability and potential for personal relevance!
As I've said before, the works of Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are better models for the future of storytelling in games. Storytelling in games like SimCity, The Sims 2, Black & White, and Fable strives towards three major goals: (1) the player directs the story, (2) story is largely comprised of responses to unpredictable, emergent events, and (3) the game provides the setting via visual, auditory, and moral (value) feedback.
Anyway, I go into much more depth in this old (long) post.
...
Friday, March 21, 2008
would real A.I. be perceived as real?
A question entered my mind as I played a little football today. As has been pointed out before, an accurate simulation of human intelligence would be capable of mistakes. But do you think gamers can ever be expected to perceive the mistakes of their NPC companions and teammates as acceptable... or even realistic?
Frankly, I doubt it.
When an NFL wide receiver doesn't catch a pass, when a World Cup goalie loses sight of a corner kick, when a basketball player misses a free throw... fans, in my experience, are generally not very forgiving. Most fans don't think "Well, even a professional's going to mess up sometimes... ". No, they think more along the lines of "C'mon, you idiot! Even I could have caught that!". Right?
If most people don't keep in mind that even the best trained and most experienced veterans will mess up and have off days, then how could we possibly expect gamers to accept mistakes from NPCs... even if those mistakes are intentionally included as realistic variables?
Every long-time gamer has had an experience that makes us say "the game cheated". Sometimes, we're right. Games do cheat. But it's often the same sort of response as yelling "Catch the freakin' ball!" while watching our favorite quarterback shake his head in disbelief (even the players have trouble accepting mistakes). We habitually choose to believe the simplest answer, rather than the truth.
If we're so willing to doubt our flesh-and-blood comrades, then NPCs don't stand a chance in hell.
Frankly, I doubt it.
When an NFL wide receiver doesn't catch a pass, when a World Cup goalie loses sight of a corner kick, when a basketball player misses a free throw... fans, in my experience, are generally not very forgiving. Most fans don't think "Well, even a professional's going to mess up sometimes... ". No, they think more along the lines of "C'mon, you idiot! Even I could have caught that!". Right?
If most people don't keep in mind that even the best trained and most experienced veterans will mess up and have off days, then how could we possibly expect gamers to accept mistakes from NPCs... even if those mistakes are intentionally included as realistic variables?
Every long-time gamer has had an experience that makes us say "the game cheated". Sometimes, we're right. Games do cheat. But it's often the same sort of response as yelling "Catch the freakin' ball!" while watching our favorite quarterback shake his head in disbelief (even the players have trouble accepting mistakes). We habitually choose to believe the simplest answer, rather than the truth.
If we're so willing to doubt our flesh-and-blood comrades, then NPCs don't stand a chance in hell.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
making room for the little guy
From IGN's preview of Warhammer Online:
"At this point, a large hydra steps off the Ark, accompanied by his Dark Elf beastmaster. Players have twenty minutes to defeat these bosses before the whole quest resets and starts over again at the beginning. This massive, multi-headed baddie was far too powerful for our little fifth-level Swordsman, so we had to be content with darting in to get a few quick hits in while some higher-level players distracted him."
The emphasis is mine. This is one of those things that should occur in all MMOs, but sadly doesn't: weak characters helping powerful characters to conquer a shared encounter.
Let's face it... Frodo was a child playing a man's game. He was tiny. He was weak. He was inexperienced. And yet, he participated in combat with trained badasses like Aragorn and Legolas; and yet, he was a hero.
A player doesn't have to be capable of single-handedly slapping a dragon silly or stuffing a kraken in a goldfish bowl to feel heroic. A player doesn't even have to be capable of killing his enemy to feel heroic. The player just has to feel as if he's contributing to something of great importance, and in a way that reveals individual merit.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Frodo and Samwise. I'm more than content to act as just a small character in a drama that stretches far beyond my own involvement.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Aragorn and Legolas. I''ll take weaker friends along on my journey, knowing that their contributions will be worthy of remembrance, too, if they are only made capable of individuality. Don't you think those veterans would have been impressed by and laughing about Sam's masterful use of a frying pan against his goblin foes in Moria? After the battle, were they talking about the elf's crazy arrow work or the lowly hobbit's surprising possession of a mithril chainmail vest?
Enable true individuality (in skills, possessions, experiences, etc), create common causes to fight for (ala Warhammer or SWG), and the grouping of the powerful with the weak will be commonplace and fun.
"At this point, a large hydra steps off the Ark, accompanied by his Dark Elf beastmaster. Players have twenty minutes to defeat these bosses before the whole quest resets and starts over again at the beginning. This massive, multi-headed baddie was far too powerful for our little fifth-level Swordsman, so we had to be content with darting in to get a few quick hits in while some higher-level players distracted him."
The emphasis is mine. This is one of those things that should occur in all MMOs, but sadly doesn't: weak characters helping powerful characters to conquer a shared encounter.
Let's face it... Frodo was a child playing a man's game. He was tiny. He was weak. He was inexperienced. And yet, he participated in combat with trained badasses like Aragorn and Legolas; and yet, he was a hero.
A player doesn't have to be capable of single-handedly slapping a dragon silly or stuffing a kraken in a goldfish bowl to feel heroic. A player doesn't even have to be capable of killing his enemy to feel heroic. The player just has to feel as if he's contributing to something of great importance, and in a way that reveals individual merit.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Frodo and Samwise. I'm more than content to act as just a small character in a drama that stretches far beyond my own involvement.
I, like so many other gamers, am more than willing to play characters like Aragorn and Legolas. I''ll take weaker friends along on my journey, knowing that their contributions will be worthy of remembrance, too, if they are only made capable of individuality. Don't you think those veterans would have been impressed by and laughing about Sam's masterful use of a frying pan against his goblin foes in Moria? After the battle, were they talking about the elf's crazy arrow work or the lowly hobbit's surprising possession of a mithril chainmail vest?
Enable true individuality (in skills, possessions, experiences, etc), create common causes to fight for (ala Warhammer or SWG), and the grouping of the powerful with the weak will be commonplace and fun.
Friday, March 14, 2008
improving animations
There's a great (but technical-oriented) article on NaturalMotion's euphoria physics engine over at AI GameDev. You might notice that two of the games using that physics simulator, Backbreaker and GTA: IV, are on my wanted list. I'm anxious to see Star Wars: The Force Unleashed as well, but that one could more easily be a short and shallow game (and Star Wars is easier to spoil than football).
Anyway, the article got me wondering how animations could be made better. I have zero experience in animation or programming, so odds are that my speculation will mean very little (which is why I post this here, and not over on the pros' forum). But sometimes an ignorant outsider can raise the right questions... in the same way young children sometimes amaze educated adults with profound insights. So why not throw some stuff out there on the off-chance that it will help?
Besides, I need a Friday post. ;)
A body as a community of symbiotic member-parts
Perhaps one possibility is to divide up a body into functionally separate, but joined and cooperative parts. Just because a player collectively perceives two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head as one object (a human body) does not mean the game's simulators and animators must focus on them in the same collective way.
As millions of diverse living cells in a body act without consideration of their fellows (self-focused programming) while simultaneously maintaining cooperative/collective value (much like thousands of self-focused, individual persons inadvertently cooperate in a stock market), a dozen or half-dozen parts of an animator's model might operate independently of one another and yet not disrupt the player's focus from the whole model.
There are two downsides that I see. First, it means extra processing, but that is becoming less of an issue as an increasing number of games are shifting resources to physics and A.I (away from the tyrannical graphics). Second, more interactive elements means less predictability for programmers. But this, too, woud become less of a problem over time, as one designer's experimentation becomes the next designer's foundational knowledge.
This is probably not a good example, but let's look at walking. The human body when walking is like a series of connected machines, each one reacting to the movements of another. The ankles allow the feet to pivot forward, back, and (to a lesser extent) sideways. The legs then make up for what balance deficits the feet and ankles can't counter. The back then twists in reaction to the legs and waist, also occasionally bending (vertebrae and ribs stretching or collapsing into each other) to absorb shocks. The arms shift, not just forward and back, but in all directions to act as counter-balances (your arms swing outward when you turn). Finally, the head attempts to remain upright in most circumstances. Each section of the body has its own goal which generally requires attention to only one or two other sections.
Joints: more is better
How often do you see models of humans in games with flat feet? Almost all the time, I'd guess, if not all the time. Now stand up and walk around the room, paying close attention to how your toes are involved in walking. The mere fact that the front of your foot (i.e., your toes, collectively) can bend enables a much smoother motion.
Now look at your hands. Each finger has three joints. Try to pick up a coke can or water bottle while only using your back knuckles, the joints that attach your fingers to your hand. There are two differences between that and normal gripping of the container. First, you obviously have a better grip when allowing all of your knuckles to bend and your fingers to encompass more of the container. The second consequence is that removing knuckles from the equation concentrates pressure on two specific points; the pressure is not as widely and evenly distributed. Especially as we move into a gaming era of more depthful and intuitive interfaces (such as virtual gloves), this considerations like these might prove useful.
Lastly, straigthen your arm back as far as it will go. If it was forced much further, your arm would break. Now imagine if injuries in Madden were actually related to events such as that and were not almost entirely random, as they always seem to have been. I know a lot of players who would be much more accepting of injuries if they actually got to see how the injuries happened (from a T-rated distance, at least).
There's a couple of ideas, anyway.
Anyway, the article got me wondering how animations could be made better. I have zero experience in animation or programming, so odds are that my speculation will mean very little (which is why I post this here, and not over on the pros' forum). But sometimes an ignorant outsider can raise the right questions... in the same way young children sometimes amaze educated adults with profound insights. So why not throw some stuff out there on the off-chance that it will help?
Besides, I need a Friday post. ;)
A body as a community of symbiotic member-parts
Perhaps one possibility is to divide up a body into functionally separate, but joined and cooperative parts. Just because a player collectively perceives two arms, two legs, a torso, and a head as one object (a human body) does not mean the game's simulators and animators must focus on them in the same collective way.
As millions of diverse living cells in a body act without consideration of their fellows (self-focused programming) while simultaneously maintaining cooperative/collective value (much like thousands of self-focused, individual persons inadvertently cooperate in a stock market), a dozen or half-dozen parts of an animator's model might operate independently of one another and yet not disrupt the player's focus from the whole model.
There are two downsides that I see. First, it means extra processing, but that is becoming less of an issue as an increasing number of games are shifting resources to physics and A.I (away from the tyrannical graphics). Second, more interactive elements means less predictability for programmers. But this, too, woud become less of a problem over time, as one designer's experimentation becomes the next designer's foundational knowledge.
This is probably not a good example, but let's look at walking. The human body when walking is like a series of connected machines, each one reacting to the movements of another. The ankles allow the feet to pivot forward, back, and (to a lesser extent) sideways. The legs then make up for what balance deficits the feet and ankles can't counter. The back then twists in reaction to the legs and waist, also occasionally bending (vertebrae and ribs stretching or collapsing into each other) to absorb shocks. The arms shift, not just forward and back, but in all directions to act as counter-balances (your arms swing outward when you turn). Finally, the head attempts to remain upright in most circumstances. Each section of the body has its own goal which generally requires attention to only one or two other sections.
Joints: more is better
How often do you see models of humans in games with flat feet? Almost all the time, I'd guess, if not all the time. Now stand up and walk around the room, paying close attention to how your toes are involved in walking. The mere fact that the front of your foot (i.e., your toes, collectively) can bend enables a much smoother motion.
Now look at your hands. Each finger has three joints. Try to pick up a coke can or water bottle while only using your back knuckles, the joints that attach your fingers to your hand. There are two differences between that and normal gripping of the container. First, you obviously have a better grip when allowing all of your knuckles to bend and your fingers to encompass more of the container. The second consequence is that removing knuckles from the equation concentrates pressure on two specific points; the pressure is not as widely and evenly distributed. Especially as we move into a gaming era of more depthful and intuitive interfaces (such as virtual gloves), this considerations like these might prove useful.
Lastly, straigthen your arm back as far as it will go. If it was forced much further, your arm would break. Now imagine if injuries in Madden were actually related to events such as that and were not almost entirely random, as they always seem to have been. I know a lot of players who would be much more accepting of injuries if they actually got to see how the injuries happened (from a T-rated distance, at least).
There's a couple of ideas, anyway.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
what D&D character am i?
I Am A: Neutral Good Human Cleric (3rd Level)
Ability Scores:
Strength-12
Dexterity-16
Constitution-13
Intelligence-15
Wisdom-14
Charisma-13
Alignment:
Neutral Good A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Class:
Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.
Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)
I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed at being human. =/
I wish more games would present clerics similar to those of the first Neverwinter Nights. A cleric would select so many spells of each level from a wide variety of options, then would select two "domains" of magic to customize his spellbook with. So one cleric might specialize in Death magic and Animal magic while another might specialize in Water magic and Sun magic. I really despise most MMO class skill systems for making players so similar to one another.
Ability Scores:
Strength-12
Dexterity-16
Constitution-13
Intelligence-15
Wisdom-14
Charisma-13
Alignment:
Neutral Good A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others. He works with kings and magistrates but does not feel beholden to them. Neutral good is the best alignment you can be because it means doing what is good without bias for or against order. However, neutral good can be a dangerous alignment because because it advances mediocrity by limiting the actions of the truly capable.
Race:
Humans are the most adaptable of the common races. Short generations and a penchant for migration and conquest have made them physically diverse as well. Humans are often unorthodox in their dress, sporting unusual hairstyles, fanciful clothes, tattoos, and the like.
Class:
Clerics act as intermediaries between the earthly and the divine (or infernal) worlds. A good cleric helps those in need, while an evil cleric seeks to spread his patron's vision of evil across the world. All clerics can heal wounds and bring people back from the brink of death, and powerful clerics can even raise the dead. Likewise, all clerics have authority over undead creatures, and they can turn away or even destroy these creatures. Clerics are trained in the use of simple weapons, and can use all forms of armor and shields without penalty, since armor does not interfere with the casting of divine spells. In addition to his normal complement of spells, every cleric chooses to focus on two of his deity's domains. These domains grants the cleric special powers, and give him access to spells that he might otherwise never learn. A cleric's Wisdom score should be high, since this determines the maximum spell level that he can cast.
Find out What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?, courtesy of Easydamus (e-mail)
I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed at being human. =/
I wish more games would present clerics similar to those of the first Neverwinter Nights. A cleric would select so many spells of each level from a wide variety of options, then would select two "domains" of magic to customize his spellbook with. So one cleric might specialize in Death magic and Animal magic while another might specialize in Water magic and Sun magic. I really despise most MMO class skill systems for making players so similar to one another.
reviews vs trailers
Honestly, I don't think reviews have ever been as influential as developers make them out to be. The fact that good reviews correlate with good sales doesn't mean good reviews cause good sales. I think it's more likely that consumers can spy a good game on their own through screenshots, FAQs, trailers, and (most importantly) speaking with gamers and salespeople.
Regardless of how influential reviews are now, I think they're starting to lose influence to the power of trailers.
Most movie-goers don't read reviews. They attract viewers almost entirely through trailers and word-of-mouth. Only now are video game commercials on TV becoming normal. As the airwaves become increasingly saturated by trailers, I think game trailers will become more important. Afterall, most viewing of game trailers now occurs among hardcore and veteran gamers, the only people who frequent gaming news sites and official game sites. When trailers are placed on TV and in movie theaters, then they're truly reaching a mass audience and mainstream gamers.
Undoubtedly, reviews make more sense for games than films. A review for a linear story can't offer much objective information without giving the plot away. Something like Spore or Command & Conquer, on the other hand, can explain exactly how gameplay occurs without ruining the game. But just because reviews are a good resource for gamers doesn't mean gamers will be any more likely to seek reviews than movie-goers are.
Anyway, expect to see more emphasis on trailers from marketing departments in the next 5-10 years.
Regardless of how influential reviews are now, I think they're starting to lose influence to the power of trailers.
Most movie-goers don't read reviews. They attract viewers almost entirely through trailers and word-of-mouth. Only now are video game commercials on TV becoming normal. As the airwaves become increasingly saturated by trailers, I think game trailers will become more important. Afterall, most viewing of game trailers now occurs among hardcore and veteran gamers, the only people who frequent gaming news sites and official game sites. When trailers are placed on TV and in movie theaters, then they're truly reaching a mass audience and mainstream gamers.
Undoubtedly, reviews make more sense for games than films. A review for a linear story can't offer much objective information without giving the plot away. Something like Spore or Command & Conquer, on the other hand, can explain exactly how gameplay occurs without ruining the game. But just because reviews are a good resource for gamers doesn't mean gamers will be any more likely to seek reviews than movie-goers are.
Anyway, expect to see more emphasis on trailers from marketing departments in the next 5-10 years.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
a natural slow-down for graphics tech?
Tipa said something interesting in this thread about PC gaming and graphics, as inspired by Tim Sweeney's ridiculous comments.
She's absolutely right that gaming has long been the driving force behind most PC hardware innovation. Without gaming, PCs would have developed akin to calculators, simple and small machines that perform just a handful of tasks and remain basically the same from decade to decade. Major advances would have been seen in laboratories, not in households.
But I'm wondering...
Last week, I watched a great video interview with Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights. He spoke about the basic premise of Too Human, the moral and pragmatic questions surrounding technology, and mentioned how we in the post-industrial era place technology on such a high pedestal. We put tremendous faith in it as a solution to our problems and desires.
Perhaps, in our admiration for computing technology in the past 20-30 years, we've mistaken the rate of progress we're used to as sustainable. Perhaps Moore's Law is actually just the steep beginning of a curve which is soon to level out. The computer industry might still be only in its infancy, and the next stage of slower growth is nearing.
Or maybe we're nearing something similar to the Uncanny Valley, a point at which equal innovation produces less thrilling results. The jump from Halo graphics to Crysis graphics is not nearly as impressive as the jump from 2-D to 3-D environments.
We've been thinking that hardware progress will continue as it has forever, but we will eventually find ourselves in a situation where the systems we have are so adequate for our needs that progress is no longer a priority. Eventually, more people will be interested in fully exploring utilization of our present resources than expanding our resources.
My thoughts on this aren't clear in my own mind, so it's come out muddled. But can you see what I'm essentially getting at?
"Games requiring high-end graphics demand high-end gamers keep upgrading their systems, spurring the need for even better graphics cards, which means more games must take advantage of them in order to return the investment; and more processor is needed, requiring more development in processors and the supporting software to make them work.
High end games DRIVE THE ENTIRE PERSONAL COMPUTER INDUSTRY."
She's absolutely right that gaming has long been the driving force behind most PC hardware innovation. Without gaming, PCs would have developed akin to calculators, simple and small machines that perform just a handful of tasks and remain basically the same from decade to decade. Major advances would have been seen in laboratories, not in households.
But I'm wondering...
Last week, I watched a great video interview with Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights. He spoke about the basic premise of Too Human, the moral and pragmatic questions surrounding technology, and mentioned how we in the post-industrial era place technology on such a high pedestal. We put tremendous faith in it as a solution to our problems and desires.
Perhaps, in our admiration for computing technology in the past 20-30 years, we've mistaken the rate of progress we're used to as sustainable. Perhaps Moore's Law is actually just the steep beginning of a curve which is soon to level out. The computer industry might still be only in its infancy, and the next stage of slower growth is nearing.
Or maybe we're nearing something similar to the Uncanny Valley, a point at which equal innovation produces less thrilling results. The jump from Halo graphics to Crysis graphics is not nearly as impressive as the jump from 2-D to 3-D environments.
We've been thinking that hardware progress will continue as it has forever, but we will eventually find ourselves in a situation where the systems we have are so adequate for our needs that progress is no longer a priority. Eventually, more people will be interested in fully exploring utilization of our present resources than expanding our resources.
My thoughts on this aren't clear in my own mind, so it's come out muddled. But can you see what I'm essentially getting at?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Spielberg "gets people"
According to Louis Castle, "More than anything he [Steven Spielberg] gets people. I have made a lot of games, more than a hundred and I am quite accomplished in this field, even I don't have that kind of instinct."
It's a surprisingly simple characteristic that explains so much about his mastery of film-making, right? He gets people. And because he understands them so well, he's remarkable apt at tapping into universal themes, desires, and habits, and letting those insights guide his craft.
I can't help but think that's the core characteristic of a master game designer, too. They get people.
Think of Will Wright, when he's explaining how human beings learn through experimentation, and love learning. Think of Peter Molyneux, when he proposes that Fable 2 will touch gamers' hearts... not through romance, but through an unshakeable companion (a dog) and unconditional love.
If you need a demographic chart to know what people want, then you don't really "get people".
It's a surprisingly simple characteristic that explains so much about his mastery of film-making, right? He gets people. And because he understands them so well, he's remarkable apt at tapping into universal themes, desires, and habits, and letting those insights guide his craft.
I can't help but think that's the core characteristic of a master game designer, too. They get people.
Think of Will Wright, when he's explaining how human beings learn through experimentation, and love learning. Think of Peter Molyneux, when he proposes that Fable 2 will touch gamers' hearts... not through romance, but through an unshakeable companion (a dog) and unconditional love.
If you need a demographic chart to know what people want, then you don't really "get people".
anonymity gets the boot
Wow. Well, this one's a doozy! A Congressman's proposing a bill that would outlaw anonymous posting on the internet. You'd have to register your name with wherever you post and your full name would show alongside every post you make.
Once again, I find myself on the opposite side of the aisle as my fellow bloggers and gamers. No, I haven't read any rants about it yet. But, let's face it, the online gaming and game development community is a predictable bunch. I'll be very surprised if I hear as many as five people supporting this move online.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the proposed bill, from what details that article provides.
The "right to privacy" is a modern invention, a legal "right" only... and even thatinvented imagined by a judge, rather than legislators. Those of us who were fortunate enough to grow up without it realize how unnecessary it is. The only act that has almost always been private cross-culturally is marital sex, and not even that at times. Christians once confessed their sins on the front steps of church, acknowledging that our every failure is a public failure. There is no private act without public relevance. And there is no righteous act that needs to be hidden (even if "no good deed goes unpunished").
One change I would make to the law, though, is that an IP tag should be included with the name, as well as middle names. There were three Aaron Miller's just in my one middle-school! I'd rather not catch hell for their stupidity again. =/
Let's face it... Killing anonymity on the internet wouldn't stop idiotic ranting, nor the mindless insults and "bullying" this Congressional bill is supposed to hinder, but it would inject just enough responsibility to make many folks a little more thoughtful and considerate online.
Once again, I find myself on the opposite side of the aisle as my fellow bloggers and gamers. No, I haven't read any rants about it yet. But, let's face it, the online gaming and game development community is a predictable bunch. I'll be very surprised if I hear as many as five people supporting this move online.
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the proposed bill, from what details that article provides.
The "right to privacy" is a modern invention, a legal "right" only... and even that
One change I would make to the law, though, is that an IP tag should be included with the name, as well as middle names. There were three Aaron Miller's just in my one middle-school! I'd rather not catch hell for their stupidity again. =/
Let's face it... Killing anonymity on the internet wouldn't stop idiotic ranting, nor the mindless insults and "bullying" this Congressional bill is supposed to hinder, but it would inject just enough responsibility to make many folks a little more thoughtful and considerate online.
Monday, March 10, 2008
the non-gamer problem
As Weekend Gamer points out, the "easy to play, difficult to master" description so often used by professional reviewers doesn't mean the same thing to non-gamers as it does to veteran gamers like us.
Veteran gamers typically have no idea just how much our gaming experience has trained us for present games. I know people who were gaming addicts for many years, and a mere 3-5 years away from gaming crippled their familiarity with gaming controls and goals. They can skillfully play an RTS and a sports game because the control scheme's closely match games they've played before. But something unfamiliar, like controlling character movement and camera movement independently in Halo 3, is beyond frustrating.
People who didn't play video games as children have an even harder time. A good eye-opener is when a game says "Press Start" and you have to show the non-gamer where the Start button is (that small, camouflaged button in the middle, with "Start" written in camouflaged print so tiny that most 40+ folks probably have trouble reading it without glasses and optimal light).
Anyway, there are obviously many implications to this, most of which have been discussed many times before. But one I'd like to point out is that I bet this is a major reason for the popularity of Flash gaming and similarly simple internet games. People don't get stupid with age. Old folks can learn complex new systems, like boardgames. But learning control schemes and unfamiliar concepts (video game goals and strategies are not perceived like boardgame goals and strategies) is different and difficult.
Flash games are the door through which a lot of non-gamers are currently passing to enter the world of gaming. I don't think they're lesser games. I'm just saying I think a lot of non-gamers perceive them as an undaunting way to familiarize themselves with this still-new passtime called video games. A person's first game has to be dirt simple, because the mere concept of interactive entertainment through a monitor or TV screen and controller is foreign to them. There's more to learning Pac-Man than "up, down, left, right", eating the dots, and avoiding the ghosts. The medium itself must be learned.
Veteran gamers typically have no idea just how much our gaming experience has trained us for present games. I know people who were gaming addicts for many years, and a mere 3-5 years away from gaming crippled their familiarity with gaming controls and goals. They can skillfully play an RTS and a sports game because the control scheme's closely match games they've played before. But something unfamiliar, like controlling character movement and camera movement independently in Halo 3, is beyond frustrating.
People who didn't play video games as children have an even harder time. A good eye-opener is when a game says "Press Start" and you have to show the non-gamer where the Start button is (that small, camouflaged button in the middle, with "Start" written in camouflaged print so tiny that most 40+ folks probably have trouble reading it without glasses and optimal light).
Anyway, there are obviously many implications to this, most of which have been discussed many times before. But one I'd like to point out is that I bet this is a major reason for the popularity of Flash gaming and similarly simple internet games. People don't get stupid with age. Old folks can learn complex new systems, like boardgames. But learning control schemes and unfamiliar concepts (video game goals and strategies are not perceived like boardgame goals and strategies) is different and difficult.
Flash games are the door through which a lot of non-gamers are currently passing to enter the world of gaming. I don't think they're lesser games. I'm just saying I think a lot of non-gamers perceive them as an undaunting way to familiarize themselves with this still-new passtime called video games. A person's first game has to be dirt simple, because the mere concept of interactive entertainment through a monitor or TV screen and controller is foreign to them. There's more to learning Pac-Man than "up, down, left, right", eating the dots, and avoiding the ghosts. The medium itself must be learned.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
could Spore help Metaplace modelers?
I've mused before about collective assets in the upcoming community of Metaplace designers. Now, I'm wondering if Maxis would be willing to join that community, and if there's any financial reason they couldn't. Spore seems to have a load of impressive editors. Its gamers will soon be designing animals, plants, buildings, transports, military vessels, spaceships, music, and who knows what else. And, just as Wright said he hoped, it all appears to be Pixar-quality.
All of those assets will be shared between Spore players through highly-compressed but detailed files. Well, what about sharing with non-Sporedians?
Just think of how useful those editors could be to Metaplace designers! Designing art, like designing anything else, can be much easier when shaping some pre-existing thing and receiving real-time feedback than when having to imagine somehing new from a blank slate. I think Spore could greatly empower the Metaplace design community. All that's needed is Maxis and EA's permission, and a tool that could convert Spore item files into 3-D models that could be imported to a Metaplace game.
Do Maxis or EA have any incentive to prevent the sharing of Spore players' creations outside of the Spore community?
If they do, it's not obvious to me. I don't see how their choice to share could hinder Spore's popularity or act as direct competition. If anything, it would direct more attention to Spore.
I hope Wright, Maxis, and EA will consider the possibility of creating or allowing a program that transfigures Spore item files into non-Spore files. It would be greatly appreciated by hundreds of gamers and designers.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
why most reviews get higher scores?
This GDC panel dicussion raised a very interesting point. A review score can dissuade people from actually reading the review. I would think a low score is the most likely to make a reader skip the actual article, with a medium-high score being the most inviting.
What this means is that game reviewers have an incentive to score games a particular way, aside from developer/publisher pressures. If they score a game too low (or too high?), their articles will be read by fewer people and thereby make less advertising money.
I'm not being accusative... just laying it out there for everyone to chew on.
What this means is that game reviewers have an incentive to score games a particular way, aside from developer/publisher pressures. If they score a game too low (or too high?), their articles will be read by fewer people and thereby make less advertising money.
I'm not being accusative... just laying it out there for everyone to chew on.
where might RPGs go?
Toward the end of an article on RPGs that I read, Peter Molyneux muses, "... I predict that the RPGs we’ll be playing in five years time will be radically different from the RPGs that we are playing today".
That got me wondering: What paths have RPGs yet to try?
Roleplay has already been combined with every genre, and efforts of inclusion continue. Take Tom Clancy's Endwar, for example... an RTS that is recording voices for each individual soldier in an attempt to humanize the gameplay of giving them orders in combat.
FRAGILE
The first idea that popped into my mind is something like The Sims in first-person. "Fragile" is what I thought to title the game.
The player selects, rather than creates, a character to play. The selection is made from a large group of characters, all of whom will act in the game as NPCs if not selected for the player's direct use. The player then plays with that character just as one might in a game like Fable 2 or Oblivion. The tricky part is that the character is "fragile" in the sense that permadeath is a close and constant possibility. No, that's not the innovation.
The fresh idea is that the player then selects one of the other NPCs to take control of. The consequences of the first character's life, and that character's reputation, remain active in this second character's life. When the second character dies, the player takes control of a third character; and, again, the new character must witness and live through the effects of the previous character's life. This situation continues through several characters -- characters of the same generation, but different personalities and circumstances.
This basic scenario could set the stage for tons of replayability and some powerful player-directed drama.
The prince and the pauper
For example, let's say one character is a prince and another is a pauper. If you play as the pauper first, you might decide that your character is bitter about his circumstances and blames the aristocracy. In an act of revenge, he kills one of the royals (and is quickly slain by the guards). When you later play the prince, you must decide how to respond to the situation you set up. Does the murder of the prince's sister send him into a rage, and all the city's peasants must pay the price? Does the murder direct his attention to the poverty around him, so you guide him into charitable acts that help the city's unfortunate? Or is the murder meaningless to him? Does he ignore it entirely or use the absence of a fellow royal to consolidate his own power?
On the other hand, you might first play as the prince. If the prince makes it his duty to aid the poor, then your later experience as the pauper might begin in very different circumstances (such as beginning in public housing, rather than sleeping in the street; or being able to rely on a few gold coins from the queen, rather than a few coppers from the baker at church). If the prince decides to outlaw beggars, your pauper might not even be allowed in the city, but instead have to survive in the woods.
That's just two characters. Now imagine continuing through another ten characters. The possible ways the overall story could play out are incalculable.
The fragile part
Apart from the more obvoius meaning of the title "Fragile" (permadeath), what it's really about is a Montessori-like learning experience... the sort of learning brilliant designers like Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are always talking about with their games. The game would be an intuitive and player-guided lesson in how precious time is and how monumental even the simplest actions can be.
For example, it would be possible for the prince to have no effect whatsoever on the pauper. If he spends most of his time hunting and partying with the aristocrats of other cities, the beggars of his own city might never see him or be affected in any way. But if he gives a few gold coins to the pauper just once, the player's pauper will begin with those coins and have a chance to change his life with them (such as by purchasing a bow and arrows, thereby becoming capable of acquiring food without stealing). Or the pauper might spend those first few coins on booze... attracts attention while drunk, and gets stabbed during the altercation (and dies). The simple act of giving or withholding a few coins, spending those coins wisely or foolishly, can result in huge consequences. Players learn a thousand ways in which the smallest of actions can change a life.
And it would not be difficult to be killed in this game. That sounds harsh, but I would make it so for one reason: true sacrifice is only possible through the possibility of true loss. The surest way for the player to prolong any character's life would be to "play it safe", to live with reservation and fear. Molyneux said he wants Fable 2 players to experience that living a good life is difficult. Likewise, I would want Fragile players to experience that goodness often requires making oneself vulnerable. The greatest, most memorable deeds require great risk. The more players are willing to risk, the more their characters would be remembered by surviving NPCs.
I'm fully aware that there are a number of difficult problems in that basic design, and that plenty of gamers would hear "permadeath" and not care about any qualifying circumstances. I'm just trying to offer an example of something RPGs haven't done before (to my knowledge).
What else haven't RPGs done before?
That got me wondering: What paths have RPGs yet to try?
Roleplay has already been combined with every genre, and efforts of inclusion continue. Take Tom Clancy's Endwar, for example... an RTS that is recording voices for each individual soldier in an attempt to humanize the gameplay of giving them orders in combat.
FRAGILE
The first idea that popped into my mind is something like The Sims in first-person. "Fragile" is what I thought to title the game.
The player selects, rather than creates, a character to play. The selection is made from a large group of characters, all of whom will act in the game as NPCs if not selected for the player's direct use. The player then plays with that character just as one might in a game like Fable 2 or Oblivion. The tricky part is that the character is "fragile" in the sense that permadeath is a close and constant possibility. No, that's not the innovation.
The fresh idea is that the player then selects one of the other NPCs to take control of. The consequences of the first character's life, and that character's reputation, remain active in this second character's life. When the second character dies, the player takes control of a third character; and, again, the new character must witness and live through the effects of the previous character's life. This situation continues through several characters -- characters of the same generation, but different personalities and circumstances.
This basic scenario could set the stage for tons of replayability and some powerful player-directed drama.
The prince and the pauper
For example, let's say one character is a prince and another is a pauper. If you play as the pauper first, you might decide that your character is bitter about his circumstances and blames the aristocracy. In an act of revenge, he kills one of the royals (and is quickly slain by the guards). When you later play the prince, you must decide how to respond to the situation you set up. Does the murder of the prince's sister send him into a rage, and all the city's peasants must pay the price? Does the murder direct his attention to the poverty around him, so you guide him into charitable acts that help the city's unfortunate? Or is the murder meaningless to him? Does he ignore it entirely or use the absence of a fellow royal to consolidate his own power?
On the other hand, you might first play as the prince. If the prince makes it his duty to aid the poor, then your later experience as the pauper might begin in very different circumstances (such as beginning in public housing, rather than sleeping in the street; or being able to rely on a few gold coins from the queen, rather than a few coppers from the baker at church). If the prince decides to outlaw beggars, your pauper might not even be allowed in the city, but instead have to survive in the woods.
That's just two characters. Now imagine continuing through another ten characters. The possible ways the overall story could play out are incalculable.
The fragile part
Apart from the more obvoius meaning of the title "Fragile" (permadeath), what it's really about is a Montessori-like learning experience... the sort of learning brilliant designers like Will Wright and Peter Molyneux are always talking about with their games. The game would be an intuitive and player-guided lesson in how precious time is and how monumental even the simplest actions can be.
For example, it would be possible for the prince to have no effect whatsoever on the pauper. If he spends most of his time hunting and partying with the aristocrats of other cities, the beggars of his own city might never see him or be affected in any way. But if he gives a few gold coins to the pauper just once, the player's pauper will begin with those coins and have a chance to change his life with them (such as by purchasing a bow and arrows, thereby becoming capable of acquiring food without stealing). Or the pauper might spend those first few coins on booze... attracts attention while drunk, and gets stabbed during the altercation (and dies). The simple act of giving or withholding a few coins, spending those coins wisely or foolishly, can result in huge consequences. Players learn a thousand ways in which the smallest of actions can change a life.
And it would not be difficult to be killed in this game. That sounds harsh, but I would make it so for one reason: true sacrifice is only possible through the possibility of true loss. The surest way for the player to prolong any character's life would be to "play it safe", to live with reservation and fear. Molyneux said he wants Fable 2 players to experience that living a good life is difficult. Likewise, I would want Fragile players to experience that goodness often requires making oneself vulnerable. The greatest, most memorable deeds require great risk. The more players are willing to risk, the more their characters would be remembered by surviving NPCs.
I'm fully aware that there are a number of difficult problems in that basic design, and that plenty of gamers would hear "permadeath" and not care about any qualifying circumstances. I'm just trying to offer an example of something RPGs haven't done before (to my knowledge).
What else haven't RPGs done before?
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
my gaming setup
A few people have posted pictures of their gaming setups. Well, someone asked to see mine today, so here it is. This is my desk, as seen from my webcam as far back as it would go (I don't have a camera).
What you might get a sense of is that my desk is a 6' x 3' hardwood monstrosity. I could jump on it and it wouldn't even creak; not bad for a $50 garage sale item. On the left is my 360 and the old CRT TV I have it hooked up to. Sadly, a TV upgrade is probably years down the line. The computer's a Dell Dimension 4800 (at least 3 years old... and acting like it, too) with a 3+ GHz Pentium 4 HT, 1G of RAM (DDR?), a Radeon 9800 Pro, and a nice 20" LCD. Instead of an HD-TV, I'll probably buy a new computer with one of those nice wrap-around widescreen monitors.
I couldn't get a clear picture of the games, but they are...
360: Crackdown, Culdcept Saga, Overlord, NCAA Football '08, Halo 3, Saints Row, Assassin's Creed, Oblivion, Fight Night, and Medal of Honor: Airborne.
PC: Sid Meier's Pirates, Hellgate: London, LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2: RotWK, both Star Wars: Battlefront games, Titan Quest, Diablo 2, Neverwinter Nights, Warcraft III, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, and two games being shipped here right now (The Sims 2 and Fable: The Lost Chapters).
There are plenty of PC games that I wish I had kept over the years, like Black & White and Command & Conquer: Generals, but I obviously have more than enough at the moment. I've traded in more than a few 360 games too now, including Mass Effect and Need for Speed: Most Wanted.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
PC gaming is never dead
Spurred by this and a half-dozen other articles, I'd like to explain why I think PC gaming is not dead, dying, or even dogpaddling in the kiddie pool and screaming that it can't swim.
A market will always be there.
As long as PCs are capable of gaming, people will be playing games on them, and other people will be making those games. Desktop PCs might very well disappear in the next 20 years, perhaps to be replaced by a non-centralized interface and AI that follows you from wall to wall to ceiling to countertop to oven to dashboard to [any flat surface you can think of], like a dog you cuddled too much as a puppy and now just won't go away. That is, afterall, the ultimate goal of Microsoft's LiveAnywhere project. When that day comes, there will be games for that platform. But until then, millions of people will play games on their PCs every day... and often when they're supposed to be working.
Modes of profit and delivery can and will adapt.
In fact, they already are adapting. As the first linked article mentions, companies are already experimenting with the use of advertisements to fund games. Some games will integrate advertising seamlessly and invisibly, but don't think the annoyance other games cause will prevent advertising from catching on. The first TV commercial wasn't three frogs croaking "Bud... Weis... Er!" -- it was probably three jerks, obviously high on Mountain Dew, yelling at the screen how Dapper Dan's hair gel could change our lives. Yet, despite our almost-constant loathing, we've come to the point where roughly a third of primetime television is commercials.
If you doubt this development for a second, consider that Battlefield: Heroes (which looks like a fun game, incidentally) will place its advertisements at the loading screen between levels/battles... just like TV commercials between plot events. Hopefully, the additional profit scheme, undisruptive microtransactions for things like appearance, will stave off greed long enough that we won't see 5-minute loading screens for another 10-20 years.
And let's not forget franchising -- the new industry buzzword. Even if Spore is pirated left and right, Maxis will recoup those losses from custom trading cards, creature models, and any number of other peripherals. On top of that, they'll be providing a number of online services which strongly reward connection to official (key-accessed) EA servers, thereby making pirated copies of the game weak and shabby by comparison. A thief hidden in anonymity is much more likely to respond to positive incentives than to threats, because he ain't scared of you.
Far from being on the decline or soon to be replaced by Asian business models, I bet we've only seen the beginning of subscription gaming. Prices and plans will vary greatly, largely because savvy developers will realize that they can start publishing content within six months or less if they simply abandon the nonsense that is the traditional MMORPG world. Start with less, expand more often -- made possible by increased dynamics and decreased emphasis on power and balance. Of course, that's only one of many development styles that will take advantage of subscriptions.
Games will be better
The quality of games matters. The PC platform, like console platforms, will occasionally have a bad series of years on the development side. The original Xbox was the victim of poor development throughout its life. Aside from the Halo games, few other games released on that console were worth a damn. Today, the 360 is the most profitable console out there -- selling more games per console than the Wii --because it hosts so many quality games. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone raving about the Wii, they're raving about Wii Sports... which comes with the console (I hope to own a Wii eventually, so don't take this as an attack). When PC game sales slump, a major factor is probably the abscence of quality-focused and reasonably limited game design on that platform.
"Reasonably limited?" I mean games, like WoW, that don't spit on owners of older PCs through insane processing requirements. I mean developers thinking about what they could do with a fraction of the funding and team size that has become the norm, rather than automatically accepting any resources available to them. I don't mean designing the next great solitaire game for Flash, cellphones, and a 5-year-old's Etch-a-Sketch. Games don't have to be quick, easy, or shallow to appeal to millions.
What sort of PC games are selling best? Of the top 40 best-selling PC games of 2007, nearly all are open-ended. MMOs, Sim games, RTS games, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Diablo (yes, still!) ... almost every one is a game with months or even years of gameplay, most with a strong social component. Even on consoles, what are the most anticipated games of this year? The ones with dynamics and replayability: GTA IV, Fable 2, MarioKart, etc.
open-ended gameplay + simple but smooth graphics and a limited scope = lower costs, greater revenues
But then, I'm not a dev, so why listen to me?
Speaking of open-ended games:
A market will always be there.
As long as PCs are capable of gaming, people will be playing games on them, and other people will be making those games. Desktop PCs might very well disappear in the next 20 years, perhaps to be replaced by a non-centralized interface and AI that follows you from wall to wall to ceiling to countertop to oven to dashboard to [any flat surface you can think of], like a dog you cuddled too much as a puppy and now just won't go away. That is, afterall, the ultimate goal of Microsoft's LiveAnywhere project. When that day comes, there will be games for that platform. But until then, millions of people will play games on their PCs every day... and often when they're supposed to be working.
Modes of profit and delivery can and will adapt.
In fact, they already are adapting. As the first linked article mentions, companies are already experimenting with the use of advertisements to fund games. Some games will integrate advertising seamlessly and invisibly, but don't think the annoyance other games cause will prevent advertising from catching on. The first TV commercial wasn't three frogs croaking "Bud... Weis... Er!" -- it was probably three jerks, obviously high on Mountain Dew, yelling at the screen how Dapper Dan's hair gel could change our lives. Yet, despite our almost-constant loathing, we've come to the point where roughly a third of primetime television is commercials.
If you doubt this development for a second, consider that Battlefield: Heroes (which looks like a fun game, incidentally) will place its advertisements at the loading screen between levels/battles... just like TV commercials between plot events. Hopefully, the additional profit scheme, undisruptive microtransactions for things like appearance, will stave off greed long enough that we won't see 5-minute loading screens for another 10-20 years.
And let's not forget franchising -- the new industry buzzword. Even if Spore is pirated left and right, Maxis will recoup those losses from custom trading cards, creature models, and any number of other peripherals. On top of that, they'll be providing a number of online services which strongly reward connection to official (key-accessed) EA servers, thereby making pirated copies of the game weak and shabby by comparison. A thief hidden in anonymity is much more likely to respond to positive incentives than to threats, because he ain't scared of you.
Far from being on the decline or soon to be replaced by Asian business models, I bet we've only seen the beginning of subscription gaming. Prices and plans will vary greatly, largely because savvy developers will realize that they can start publishing content within six months or less if they simply abandon the nonsense that is the traditional MMORPG world. Start with less, expand more often -- made possible by increased dynamics and decreased emphasis on power and balance. Of course, that's only one of many development styles that will take advantage of subscriptions.
Games will be better
The quality of games matters. The PC platform, like console platforms, will occasionally have a bad series of years on the development side. The original Xbox was the victim of poor development throughout its life. Aside from the Halo games, few other games released on that console were worth a damn. Today, the 360 is the most profitable console out there -- selling more games per console than the Wii --because it hosts so many quality games. In fact, 9 times out of 10 when I hear someone raving about the Wii, they're raving about Wii Sports... which comes with the console (I hope to own a Wii eventually, so don't take this as an attack). When PC game sales slump, a major factor is probably the abscence of quality-focused and reasonably limited game design on that platform.
"Reasonably limited?" I mean games, like WoW, that don't spit on owners of older PCs through insane processing requirements. I mean developers thinking about what they could do with a fraction of the funding and team size that has become the norm, rather than automatically accepting any resources available to them. I don't mean designing the next great solitaire game for Flash, cellphones, and a 5-year-old's Etch-a-Sketch. Games don't have to be quick, easy, or shallow to appeal to millions.
What sort of PC games are selling best? Of the top 40 best-selling PC games of 2007, nearly all are open-ended. MMOs, Sim games, RTS games, Oblivion, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Diablo (yes, still!) ... almost every one is a game with months or even years of gameplay, most with a strong social component. Even on consoles, what are the most anticipated games of this year? The ones with dynamics and replayability: GTA IV, Fable 2, MarioKart, etc.
open-ended gameplay + simple but smooth graphics and a limited scope = lower costs, greater revenues
But then, I'm not a dev, so why listen to me?
Speaking of open-ended games:
Thursday, February 28, 2008
reverting to saved games
In games like Mass Effect and Deus Ex, the player can keep the game saved at many points. So it's possible to save before doing anything with a permanent effect (like choosing a skill or dialogue route) and returning to the save later to try a different route.
You can return in theory, anyway. In actuality, you've often progressed so far from the saved moment to the game's end that returning is a jarring experience. It's like watching a 2-hour film all the through, then being dropped back to the 30-minute mark to view a different course. Dropping back just 5 or 10 minutes, ala the ending of the movie Clue, is alright. But dropping back over an hour is begging for confusion and only a shallow immersion in events.
So, is there an alternative? Is there a way for a player to return to a much earlier point in his game experience without it feeling shallow or awkward?
TV series sometimes refresh their viewers memories with clips of the previous show. That helps avoid confusion, though it still requires that immersion be built up from scratch again. Would something like that work with a game? If skills or the complexity of the control scheme or item hoard changes significantly through the game, then the player would need to be refreshed on more than just the story.
Can much be done about this problem?
You can return in theory, anyway. In actuality, you've often progressed so far from the saved moment to the game's end that returning is a jarring experience. It's like watching a 2-hour film all the through, then being dropped back to the 30-minute mark to view a different course. Dropping back just 5 or 10 minutes, ala the ending of the movie Clue, is alright. But dropping back over an hour is begging for confusion and only a shallow immersion in events.
So, is there an alternative? Is there a way for a player to return to a much earlier point in his game experience without it feeling shallow or awkward?
TV series sometimes refresh their viewers memories with clips of the previous show. That helps avoid confusion, though it still requires that immersion be built up from scratch again. Would something like that work with a game? If skills or the complexity of the control scheme or item hoard changes significantly through the game, then the player would need to be refreshed on more than just the story.
Can much be done about this problem?
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
drama in games vs film
Over at Weekend Gamer, I posted some thoughts about permanent consequences in games. Toward the end, I got to thinking about how open gamers in general really are to negative emotions:
What do you think? Am I right that there are more barriers to including the full spectrum of emotions in games than just people respecting games as a dramatic medium, like films?
... . Designers like to talk about games that will make us sad and angry the way movies do, but gamers in general don't want that sort of stuff in games (at least, not in the sort of games we're already familiar with). Unsettling movies and unsettling games are fundamentally different. The saddened or angered movie viewer must only continue to watch further events. The saddened or angered gamer must continue to participate in events. Therefore, negative emotions require more patience from gamers than from movie-viewers.
What do you think? Am I right that there are more barriers to including the full spectrum of emotions in games than just people respecting games as a dramatic medium, like films?
mini-maps are shit
I love this quote from Peter Molyneux at the GDC: ""Mini-maps are shit. They're shit because you make these multimillion-dollar games, and people play them staring at these little dots."
The last game I had that problem with was Saints Row. Learning streets and landmarks takes time, while the mini-map provided instant knowledge, so I spent nearly all of my time looking at the mini-map while driving to missions and shops around the city. Whenever I didn't watch the mini-map, I was able to appreciate and enjoy the city itself. The mini-map effectively placed a big chunk of the game into shadow.
Of course, avoiding mini-maps can be difficult, as Molyneux's upcoming Fable 2 clearly demonstrates. I'm sure developing the AI to make that game's dog into a guide has been no easy feat. Still, any designer should at least begin with a determination to replace such an obviously flawed mechanism.
What other features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
For example, could the need for inventory screens, which remove players from focus on the gameworld, be largely negated by letting the player sort the desirability of equipment elements? In other words, could choosing equipment preferences be a simple one-shot decision at the beginning of the game, like character class? At character creation (revisable at any time thereafter), I prioritize damage-dealing (1), fire-wielding (2), cold-resistance (3) ----> blunt protection (18). And so the game automatically switches or does not switch out my character's gear based on how well an item's stats match up with my chosen priorities (damage-dealing over protection, fire damage over cold damage, etc). Is that clear at all? The question at the heart of all that is whether or not the need for inventory management can be minimized.
Another possible example is directing a player toward a major quest by designing minor quests to nudge the player in that direction. Depending on the quest, environmental indicators might also be possible. For example: if there's more ash and destruction to the west, then the bad guy probably went that way.
Anyway, back to my question: What features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
The last game I had that problem with was Saints Row. Learning streets and landmarks takes time, while the mini-map provided instant knowledge, so I spent nearly all of my time looking at the mini-map while driving to missions and shops around the city. Whenever I didn't watch the mini-map, I was able to appreciate and enjoy the city itself. The mini-map effectively placed a big chunk of the game into shadow.
Of course, avoiding mini-maps can be difficult, as Molyneux's upcoming Fable 2 clearly demonstrates. I'm sure developing the AI to make that game's dog into a guide has been no easy feat. Still, any designer should at least begin with a determination to replace such an obviously flawed mechanism.
What other features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
For example, could the need for inventory screens, which remove players from focus on the gameworld, be largely negated by letting the player sort the desirability of equipment elements? In other words, could choosing equipment preferences be a simple one-shot decision at the beginning of the game, like character class? At character creation (revisable at any time thereafter), I prioritize damage-dealing (1), fire-wielding (2), cold-resistance (3) ----> blunt protection (18). And so the game automatically switches or does not switch out my character's gear based on how well an item's stats match up with my chosen priorities (damage-dealing over protection, fire damage over cold damage, etc). Is that clear at all? The question at the heart of all that is whether or not the need for inventory management can be minimized.
Another possible example is directing a player toward a major quest by designing minor quests to nudge the player in that direction. Depending on the quest, environmental indicators might also be possible. For example: if there's more ash and destruction to the west, then the bad guy probably went that way.
Anyway, back to my question: What features are common yet obviously distractions from core gameplay?
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
know thy enemy
Sometime tomorrow, I'll pick up my pre-order of Culdcept Saga. One interesting feature of that board-card game is that you're able to see your opponent's cards. You know every card they draw and even get a glimpse of their entire hand each turn.
Some reviewers complained about this, because it definitely goes against expectations. But it's an interesting twist, I enjoy it in the CS demo, and I've been thinking how it might open up a new style of gameplay for many genres.
RTS games, for example. Imagine knowing at all times what your enemy is doing. What would it be like if the element of surprise was not present?
It's a little more common in mono-a-mono games. If an enemy spell takes 3 seconds to cast, the player might be able to recognize it in the first second and cast a 2-second counterspell. In Sid Meier's Pirates!, the same is possible in dueling.
Anyway, how do y'all feel about some games including complete transparency?
Some reviewers complained about this, because it definitely goes against expectations. But it's an interesting twist, I enjoy it in the CS demo, and I've been thinking how it might open up a new style of gameplay for many genres.
RTS games, for example. Imagine knowing at all times what your enemy is doing. What would it be like if the element of surprise was not present?
It's a little more common in mono-a-mono games. If an enemy spell takes 3 seconds to cast, the player might be able to recognize it in the first second and cast a 2-second counterspell. In Sid Meier's Pirates!, the same is possible in dueling.
Anyway, how do y'all feel about some games including complete transparency?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
