Apparently, almost half of the gamers with an account on Xbox Live don't pay for a Gold membership (which would give them access to online multiplayer). This makes me even more certain that online play and multiplayer are not, as they are sometimes touted to be, the future of gaming. They are merely options, with offline play and single-player games remaining very popular.
We can assume that many 360 gamers want to play online but either will not / cannot pay for it or they don't have enough free time to justify the expense. However, we can also assume that many gamers pay for a Gold account but don't regularly use it for online play (I'm an example). I expect those and other factors make the Gold/Silver accounts balance a less-than-perfect indicator of interest in single-player gameplay vs multiplayer, but it might be roughly accurate in that regard.
More importantly, though, we can look at the sales figures for single-player games. Bioshock, Assassin's Creed, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Super Mario Galaxy, Wii Play, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Metal Gear Solid 4 are all bestselling games that thrive on offline, single-player experiences. Other hits like The Sims, Spore, and Little Big Planet are essentially offline, single-player experiences in which online components work backstage. Single-player games are still very profitable and still among the most popular games around.
And yet, how much money is there to be had from downloadable content? That potential will skew the market toward online gameplay. Single-player games will always have a large share of the market, but I expect we'll see more and more games using the model of Oblivion and GTA IV: single-player, but with DLC that does not always appear simultaneously as hard copies.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
ammo drops
Any fan of shooter games knows the frustration of looting an enemy only to find ammo you don't want. Perhaps you prefer a shotgun and you keep finding machine gun ammo. Or perhaps you love the sniper and you keep finding grenades.
Sometimes it feels like the game is plotting against you. "No, use this weapon!" it says. The game keeps trying to coax you into a playstyle you don't prefer. Of course, this is often just the player's wishful misperception.
In any case, it raises the question of how ammo drops can and should be handled. I don't think there's any best answer -- what's good depends on the specific game and the designer's goals. But let's explore some of the options.
(1) Keep the drop frequency of all ammo even. This approach can encourage players to mix it up by ensuring they run out of their preferred ammo. How scarce any ammo type is depends on the number of weapons in the game. The more potential weapons in an area, the more likely the ammo found won't be preferred.
(2) Increase the frequency of ammo for the weapon the player is currently using. This approach encourages the player to pick a favorite weapon, to choose a playstyle. If ammo drops in general are high enough, it doesn't prevent players from switching weapons according to whim or changing scenarios (such as environment).
(3) Frequency of ammo drops are relative to each particular weapon's cumulative use. This accounts for players having preferred weapon sets, rather than preferences for a single weapon at a time. If a player likes to switch between a shotgun and sniper rifle, then more ammo is found for those weapons than for other weapons. This also means that if the player is carrying a sniper but hasn't used it in a while, he won't get extra sniper ammo he doesn't need.
(4) Encourage specific weapons for specific encounters through ammo. For example, if a particularly tough boss is more susceptible to incendiary rounds, then that ammo type drops within the boss's vicinity. In subtlest for, this can be used as hints to the player.
(5) Offer multiple weapons per ammo type. This encourages players to select a preferred genre of weapons, like in Medal of Honor: Airborne (rifles use one ammo, machine guns another), or a preferred ammo style (anti-personnel, anti-armor, incendiary, etc).
What other options are there? Which do you prefer?
Sometimes it feels like the game is plotting against you. "No, use this weapon!" it says. The game keeps trying to coax you into a playstyle you don't prefer. Of course, this is often just the player's wishful misperception.
In any case, it raises the question of how ammo drops can and should be handled. I don't think there's any best answer -- what's good depends on the specific game and the designer's goals. But let's explore some of the options.
(1) Keep the drop frequency of all ammo even. This approach can encourage players to mix it up by ensuring they run out of their preferred ammo. How scarce any ammo type is depends on the number of weapons in the game. The more potential weapons in an area, the more likely the ammo found won't be preferred.
(2) Increase the frequency of ammo for the weapon the player is currently using. This approach encourages the player to pick a favorite weapon, to choose a playstyle. If ammo drops in general are high enough, it doesn't prevent players from switching weapons according to whim or changing scenarios (such as environment).
(3) Frequency of ammo drops are relative to each particular weapon's cumulative use. This accounts for players having preferred weapon sets, rather than preferences for a single weapon at a time. If a player likes to switch between a shotgun and sniper rifle, then more ammo is found for those weapons than for other weapons. This also means that if the player is carrying a sniper but hasn't used it in a while, he won't get extra sniper ammo he doesn't need.
(4) Encourage specific weapons for specific encounters through ammo. For example, if a particularly tough boss is more susceptible to incendiary rounds, then that ammo type drops within the boss's vicinity. In subtlest for, this can be used as hints to the player.
(5) Offer multiple weapons per ammo type. This encourages players to select a preferred genre of weapons, like in Medal of Honor: Airborne (rifles use one ammo, machine guns another), or a preferred ammo style (anti-personnel, anti-armor, incendiary, etc).
What other options are there? Which do you prefer?
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
local economies
Sadly, no matter how well a company is run, it will always be susceptible to uncontrollable influences and events. Governments and economies are two such influences.
From what I can tell, most game developers living in California are usually happy to live there. They enjoy the landscape and the culture, stomaching the high expense of living with little complaint. But the state's current economic situation and rumblings of higher taxes make me wonder how the game industry will respond.
I'm offering no political commentary; making no predictions. I'm just wondering what it means when the geographical heart of this industry happens to be the region most endangered by America's current economic troubles. Game companies have been hurting from the national economy for some time now. But to what extent are they hurting from local economies?
I found out today that some small portion of the "stimulus" bill will go to Hollywood filmmakers. Are game developers also expecting money from the bill? If so, would it be enough to offset unexpected costs? There's talk of numerous taxes in California being raised.
Might such raised expenses be enough to cause an exodus of game developers from the state? or enough to convince new developers to set up shop elsewhere? Are any states or cities handling the recession particularly well and attracting game businesses?
As I said, I'm making no predictions. But these are issues I'd expect to come up more often in the coming weeks and months. I keep reading articles about how the global economy is affecting the industry. I haven't happened across one yet discussing local economies. If you see one, please share it.
From what I can tell, most game developers living in California are usually happy to live there. They enjoy the landscape and the culture, stomaching the high expense of living with little complaint. But the state's current economic situation and rumblings of higher taxes make me wonder how the game industry will respond.
I'm offering no political commentary; making no predictions. I'm just wondering what it means when the geographical heart of this industry happens to be the region most endangered by America's current economic troubles. Game companies have been hurting from the national economy for some time now. But to what extent are they hurting from local economies?
I found out today that some small portion of the "stimulus" bill will go to Hollywood filmmakers. Are game developers also expecting money from the bill? If so, would it be enough to offset unexpected costs? There's talk of numerous taxes in California being raised.
Might such raised expenses be enough to cause an exodus of game developers from the state? or enough to convince new developers to set up shop elsewhere? Are any states or cities handling the recession particularly well and attracting game businesses?
As I said, I'm making no predictions. But these are issues I'd expect to come up more often in the coming weeks and months. I keep reading articles about how the global economy is affecting the industry. I haven't happened across one yet discussing local economies. If you see one, please share it.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
subtle settings
Does it seem to anyone else like most game settings have all the subtlety of a wrecking ball?
There's the utter devastation of Fallout 3, Gears of War, and Resistance 2. There's the blatant fascism of Half-Life 2 and Bioshock. Overt alien invasions, war hotspots, monsters, tyrants, blood caked on the walls, bodies lying on floors and hanging from ceilings, etc.
It sure would be nice to occasionally play a game where the conflicts are under the surface, the enemies hidden in plain sight, the outcomes uncertain. Most great works of film and literature contain elements of mystery, complex and rounded characters, and questions left open.
There's the utter devastation of Fallout 3, Gears of War, and Resistance 2. There's the blatant fascism of Half-Life 2 and Bioshock. Overt alien invasions, war hotspots, monsters, tyrants, blood caked on the walls, bodies lying on floors and hanging from ceilings, etc.
It sure would be nice to occasionally play a game where the conflicts are under the surface, the enemies hidden in plain sight, the outcomes uncertain. Most great works of film and literature contain elements of mystery, complex and rounded characters, and questions left open.
Monday, February 16, 2009
the American hero
I watched the movie Die Hard for the nth time over the weekend. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that John McClane is like a modern John Wayne, and John Wayne is the quintessential American hero of our stories.
What defines the American hero?
First, there's rugged individualism, which is probably the most American trait. I feel the need to point out that rugged individualism is not the same as the selfish libertine attitude that modern Hollywood writers like to give protagonists. It's not individualism without a care for others, or doing things differently just to be different. Rugged individualism means stubborn self-sufficiency and a willingness to fight against any odds.
Most of John Wayne most memorable characters are polite and soft-spoken, but also no-nonsense persons who don't let law or manners get in the way of justice (if they were D&D characters, their alignment would be Neutral Good). Wayne usually ends up punching somebody. McClane isn't so polite -- definitely rough around the edges -- but he's similarly decisive in response to problems and quick to give jerks their due.
The American hero doesn't want to be heroic. He wants a quiet, ordered life; but he accepts a personal duty to protect the weak against evil and injustice. Incidentally, the American hero is in this sense very similar to the farmer-soldier of ancient Rome -- he does his duty, then returns to a quiet, humble life.
The American hero is humble (which is definitely harder to see in McClane). In the film McClintock, Wayne's character owns most of the land around town and is a sort of unofficial mayor, yet most of the townsfolk admire him because he's fair and respects the lowliest people. He's gives money to the town bum, despite knowing the money will be spent on liquor, and jokes around with the bum as a friend. He's friends with the same indians who put arrows in him years ago, and even represents them against his own government. The American hero is usually uneducated, relying on street smarts and a poor man's wisdom.
Which, perhaps, is another characteristic of the American hero: an open heart. He's friends with unlikely people... people who are very different from him. He might not even understand them, but he still travels with them, jokes with them, and fights for them. You see this with McClane, too, in the way he befriends a young, aloof limo driver or an eccentric airport groundskeeper. The American hero isn't multicultural. Wayne and McClane aren't worldly. They are proud of their own culture and not too interested in learning others, but they are accepting of people from any origin.
What else might be a characteristic of the archetypal American hero?
And can you think of any game characters that come close? I think the Master Chief in Halo and Marcus Fenix in Gears of War might.
I've asked my English friend, David, to describe who he thinks is the quintessential British/English hero from film and literature. His gut reaction was Sean Connery as James Bond. I'll be interested to see how American heroes compare to heroes of other cultures. My guess is that heroes cross-culturally are basically the same, but there are a number of significant nuances. Humility, for example, is not a virtue in all cultures.
What defines the American hero?
First, there's rugged individualism, which is probably the most American trait. I feel the need to point out that rugged individualism is not the same as the selfish libertine attitude that modern Hollywood writers like to give protagonists. It's not individualism without a care for others, or doing things differently just to be different. Rugged individualism means stubborn self-sufficiency and a willingness to fight against any odds.
Most of John Wayne most memorable characters are polite and soft-spoken, but also no-nonsense persons who don't let law or manners get in the way of justice (if they were D&D characters, their alignment would be Neutral Good). Wayne usually ends up punching somebody. McClane isn't so polite -- definitely rough around the edges -- but he's similarly decisive in response to problems and quick to give jerks their due.
The American hero doesn't want to be heroic. He wants a quiet, ordered life; but he accepts a personal duty to protect the weak against evil and injustice. Incidentally, the American hero is in this sense very similar to the farmer-soldier of ancient Rome -- he does his duty, then returns to a quiet, humble life.
The American hero is humble (which is definitely harder to see in McClane). In the film McClintock, Wayne's character owns most of the land around town and is a sort of unofficial mayor, yet most of the townsfolk admire him because he's fair and respects the lowliest people. He's gives money to the town bum, despite knowing the money will be spent on liquor, and jokes around with the bum as a friend. He's friends with the same indians who put arrows in him years ago, and even represents them against his own government. The American hero is usually uneducated, relying on street smarts and a poor man's wisdom.
Which, perhaps, is another characteristic of the American hero: an open heart. He's friends with unlikely people... people who are very different from him. He might not even understand them, but he still travels with them, jokes with them, and fights for them. You see this with McClane, too, in the way he befriends a young, aloof limo driver or an eccentric airport groundskeeper. The American hero isn't multicultural. Wayne and McClane aren't worldly. They are proud of their own culture and not too interested in learning others, but they are accepting of people from any origin.
What else might be a characteristic of the archetypal American hero?
And can you think of any game characters that come close? I think the Master Chief in Halo and Marcus Fenix in Gears of War might.
I've asked my English friend, David, to describe who he thinks is the quintessential British/English hero from film and literature. His gut reaction was Sean Connery as James Bond. I'll be interested to see how American heroes compare to heroes of other cultures. My guess is that heroes cross-culturally are basically the same, but there are a number of significant nuances. Humility, for example, is not a virtue in all cultures.
Friday, February 13, 2009
overwhelming narratives
I watched an episode of CSI: NY yesterday. An interesting aspect of that show's structure is that there's two detective stories taking place at the same time, interrupting each other at a predictable pace.
This has two benefits. First, it doubles the writers' chances of picking a basic scenario that each viewer will appreciate. Second, each mystery distracts viewers from the other, thereby making it less likely the audience will figure things out... preserving the element of surprise.
The latter is a strategy game writers might employ. Unlike TV shows, games generally don't dictate pace entirely, and that dampens the power of distractions. Still, shifting the player's focus periodically can be a way to prolong suspense and make anticipation more difficult.
But I wouldn't blame a writer for not using this strategy. It's almost cheating, right?
This has two benefits. First, it doubles the writers' chances of picking a basic scenario that each viewer will appreciate. Second, each mystery distracts viewers from the other, thereby making it less likely the audience will figure things out... preserving the element of surprise.
The latter is a strategy game writers might employ. Unlike TV shows, games generally don't dictate pace entirely, and that dampens the power of distractions. Still, shifting the player's focus periodically can be a way to prolong suspense and make anticipation more difficult.
But I wouldn't blame a writer for not using this strategy. It's almost cheating, right?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The Agency interview: part 2
A few months ago, Osbon and I published the first part of an interview we did with SOE Seattle's Matt Staroscik. Matt is Game Designer and Lead Writer for The Agency -- an interesting combination of FPS action, RPG-like character advancement, and classic MMO features. Here's part two of the interview.
Thanks again to Staroscik and SOE; and also to Osbon for inviting me to offer some questions.
(1) Game server - will there be just one game world, like EvE Online or many, like WoW?
There will definitely be more than one server. EvE’s approach is great for their game, but our world has its own specific needs.
(2) What balance of PvE & PvP content will be included in the initial release? Will PvP be optional for players & will there be specific PvP areas?
If we’re talking about the quantity of content customized for PvP vs PvE, PvE is definitely the leader. We’re very much a traditional MMO in that way, but we know our shooter-lovin’ audience demands a quality PvP experience too. We’re putting a lot of work into making great PvP maps and game modes to scratch that itch.
The great thing about PvP is that your opponents provide most of the variety. A few good arenas can go a long way towards a satisfying PvP experience, if you have well balanced weapons and skills to back them up. Everyone reading this article can probably name a few FPS PvP maps that they have come to love over the years. Hopefully, The Agency will add a couple to your list. (‘til then, maybe I will see you in dustbowl!)
Even though PvP is a critical feature for us to nail, PvP is never required in The Agency. We’re going to do our best to lure you in though, with good matchmaking and remorseless gameplay. We’ll also be putting bonuses for the PvE game into PvP spaces—like unlocking side quests. I expect that many of our players will split their time pretty evenly between PvP and PvE, and I’m very optimistic that even people who dislike PvP will have some fun in the arenas anyway.
(3) How much of the game world will be open to the player to explore on release & how much of this will comprise of instance-based areas?
The split between fully public and instanced space is about 50/50.
(4) Prague has been highlighted as one of the cities that players can explore as an open environment - how many other cities will there be like this? Can you name any?
While you can explore a good bit of Prague, I want to make sure that people aren’t expecting a GTA-style open world. The Agency is built on a hub-and-spoke model, where you have a large space that is connected via travel services to smaller spaces. So, you’ll run around in the embassy district looking for trouble, and then grab a limo to take you over to the red-light district, and from there maybe you will get into an instance. One other major locale that’s built in this way is Panama City.
There are many smaller locales, too—a couple of examples are Kiev and Cartagena. We want players to feel like they are traveling all over the world instead of spending all their time in a few cities.
(5) Will players be able to use land/sea/air Vehicles eg like 'mounts' in other MMOs? If so will there be vehicle combat?
I can’t talk much about our plans for vehicles right now. We have some really lofty aspirations, but we have not locked down what we’ll ship with. It’s better not to tease you…
(6) How often will new content be added to the game over time? Will new content always be DLC or are you planning retail expansion packs? Both?
The “Agency Current Episode System” (ACES) will expand on the main storyline that players experience in the PvE game with new, free missions. We intend to deliver new ACES missions every other week.
There will also be expansion packs, of course. Whether they will be downloads or in a box, I don’t know yet. I have a feeling we’ll see some of both.
(7) Will there be a monthly access fee?
Man, everyone asks that!
SOE is very interested in different models than the traditional MMO monthly fee for our next generation of games. What does that mean for The Agency? I can’t let that out of the bag just yet.
The Agency will probably be the first MMO I've played post-beta in years. It seems to have some interesting dynamics, a light-hearted and humorous style, and lots of fun allusions to popular spy and mercenary fiction. Here's a video from a year ago:
Thanks again to Staroscik and SOE; and also to Osbon for inviting me to offer some questions.
(1) Game server - will there be just one game world, like EvE Online or many, like WoW?
There will definitely be more than one server. EvE’s approach is great for their game, but our world has its own specific needs.
(2) What balance of PvE & PvP content will be included in the initial release? Will PvP be optional for players & will there be specific PvP areas?
If we’re talking about the quantity of content customized for PvP vs PvE, PvE is definitely the leader. We’re very much a traditional MMO in that way, but we know our shooter-lovin’ audience demands a quality PvP experience too. We’re putting a lot of work into making great PvP maps and game modes to scratch that itch.
The great thing about PvP is that your opponents provide most of the variety. A few good arenas can go a long way towards a satisfying PvP experience, if you have well balanced weapons and skills to back them up. Everyone reading this article can probably name a few FPS PvP maps that they have come to love over the years. Hopefully, The Agency will add a couple to your list. (‘til then, maybe I will see you in dustbowl!)
Even though PvP is a critical feature for us to nail, PvP is never required in The Agency. We’re going to do our best to lure you in though, with good matchmaking and remorseless gameplay. We’ll also be putting bonuses for the PvE game into PvP spaces—like unlocking side quests. I expect that many of our players will split their time pretty evenly between PvP and PvE, and I’m very optimistic that even people who dislike PvP will have some fun in the arenas anyway.
(3) How much of the game world will be open to the player to explore on release & how much of this will comprise of instance-based areas?
The split between fully public and instanced space is about 50/50.
(4) Prague has been highlighted as one of the cities that players can explore as an open environment - how many other cities will there be like this? Can you name any?
While you can explore a good bit of Prague, I want to make sure that people aren’t expecting a GTA-style open world. The Agency is built on a hub-and-spoke model, where you have a large space that is connected via travel services to smaller spaces. So, you’ll run around in the embassy district looking for trouble, and then grab a limo to take you over to the red-light district, and from there maybe you will get into an instance. One other major locale that’s built in this way is Panama City.
There are many smaller locales, too—a couple of examples are Kiev and Cartagena. We want players to feel like they are traveling all over the world instead of spending all their time in a few cities.
(5) Will players be able to use land/sea/air Vehicles eg like 'mounts' in other MMOs? If so will there be vehicle combat?
I can’t talk much about our plans for vehicles right now. We have some really lofty aspirations, but we have not locked down what we’ll ship with. It’s better not to tease you…
(6) How often will new content be added to the game over time? Will new content always be DLC or are you planning retail expansion packs? Both?
The “Agency Current Episode System” (ACES) will expand on the main storyline that players experience in the PvE game with new, free missions. We intend to deliver new ACES missions every other week.
There will also be expansion packs, of course. Whether they will be downloads or in a box, I don’t know yet. I have a feeling we’ll see some of both.
(7) Will there be a monthly access fee?
Man, everyone asks that!
SOE is very interested in different models than the traditional MMO monthly fee for our next generation of games. What does that mean for The Agency? I can’t let that out of the bag just yet.
The Agency will probably be the first MMO I've played post-beta in years. It seems to have some interesting dynamics, a light-hearted and humorous style, and lots of fun allusions to popular spy and mercenary fiction. Here's a video from a year ago:
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
iTunes for games
It seems foolish at this point for any game to not be sold in download form (though I think hard copies still make sense as well). Downloads have an inherent advantage: they're more conducive to impulse purchases.
Get gamers used to buying games online and you're all but guaranteed to sell games via impulsive decisions. In less than two minutes, a person can buy a game on a site like Direct2Drive. It's so much easier to coax a person into buying something momentarily than to get them to plan a later purchase.
The game industry desperately needs something like iTunes, one place where every product from every company can be downloaded. In fact, I no reason to settle for something like iTunes... start signing deals with Apple, and Amazon. Do that, and sales will increase exponentially.
Get gamers used to buying games online and you're all but guaranteed to sell games via impulsive decisions. In less than two minutes, a person can buy a game on a site like Direct2Drive. It's so much easier to coax a person into buying something momentarily than to get them to plan a later purchase.
The game industry desperately needs something like iTunes, one place where every product from every company can be downloaded. In fact, I no reason to settle for something like iTunes... start signing deals with Apple, and Amazon. Do that, and sales will increase exponentially.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
combining fun and depth
Keira points out that the deepest and most impressive literature usually requires more investment from the audience to get through. That got me thinking...
Relatively few people read classic fiction, literary masterpieces, outside of school. Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, and Dante might be universally recognized as great writers, but their works are generally not casual reading.
What might that tell us about classic games? interactive masterpieces?
Well, for one thing, I think of the literary masterworks that became popular in their own times. Those works excel on multiple levels. On the one hand, they can be enjoyed as casual entertainment. On the other hand, they involve enough depth, mystery, and open questions to warrant replays and slower, lingering enjoyment. The best stories (LOTR, for example) are shallow and deep at the same time, combining serious philosophy and commentary with simple jokes, quirks, and everyday events.
Relatively few people read classic fiction, literary masterpieces, outside of school. Shakespeare, Dickens, Poe, and Dante might be universally recognized as great writers, but their works are generally not casual reading.
What might that tell us about classic games? interactive masterpieces?
Well, for one thing, I think of the literary masterworks that became popular in their own times. Those works excel on multiple levels. On the one hand, they can be enjoyed as casual entertainment. On the other hand, they involve enough depth, mystery, and open questions to warrant replays and slower, lingering enjoyment. The best stories (LOTR, for example) are shallow and deep at the same time, combining serious philosophy and commentary with simple jokes, quirks, and everyday events.
Monday, February 09, 2009
fables
In college, creative writing instructors usually gravitate toward modern styles of fiction. Students are trained to write like 20th-century libertines, which is to say form is more strictly controlled than guts. Modern readers, we're taught, like subjectivity in their fiction; there are a hundred accurate interpretations for any given story. But modern readers don't like subjectivity in description. Every character must be painted to the finest detail, every motion and action described in documentary fashion.
This is a sadly limited approach to fiction. It's equivalent to suggesting that jazz is how music is done, while folk tunes and rock ballads are something primitive that sophisticated songwriters now ignore.
Fables are a form of storytelling which is commonly perceived as crude and antiquated. They rarely linger on physical description, focusing on ideals/forms rather than specific shapes and actualities. The author uses broad strokes to convey a very specific message. If there's a plot, and there often is not, the action is relatively subdued in its service to the theme; and the story might be punctuated by many small themes.
If you glance over the short story I posted on my fiction blog last week, you'll see some examples of what I'm talking about; and perhaps get a sense of how fables can be told in modern language and culture. Notice that the physical appearances of the characters are not described. Note how much direct telling there is. Fables usually involve commentary on the story's events, though the commentary is often masked in riddles and imagery.
Anyway, so why am I talking about fables? It is indeed a primitive storytelling method, but it's a good one. And I'm wondering how fables can look in game form.
Visual media play by different rules than literature. The film 300 is an example of a visual fable. Appearances are often meant to be representative and idealistic. The story is painted in broad strokes, skimming over details to keep theme front-and-center. Action scenes are filled with purpose, emphasizing the primary theme (courage and resilience). A fable-game can have all the same elements as other games, but the emphasis is different.
One last point: fables aim at truth. To say that they focus on ideals and representations is not to say they disregard reality. They are aimed at reality, but reveal it in a fundamentally different way. If plain, straightforward language was enough to illuminate our world, we would have no need of art. Fables use bare caricatures to communicate the essences which mathematical descriptions miss.
Sorry if this post feels incomplete. I'm a bit distracted today.
This is a sadly limited approach to fiction. It's equivalent to suggesting that jazz is how music is done, while folk tunes and rock ballads are something primitive that sophisticated songwriters now ignore.
Fables are a form of storytelling which is commonly perceived as crude and antiquated. They rarely linger on physical description, focusing on ideals/forms rather than specific shapes and actualities. The author uses broad strokes to convey a very specific message. If there's a plot, and there often is not, the action is relatively subdued in its service to the theme; and the story might be punctuated by many small themes.
If you glance over the short story I posted on my fiction blog last week, you'll see some examples of what I'm talking about; and perhaps get a sense of how fables can be told in modern language and culture. Notice that the physical appearances of the characters are not described. Note how much direct telling there is. Fables usually involve commentary on the story's events, though the commentary is often masked in riddles and imagery.
Anyway, so why am I talking about fables? It is indeed a primitive storytelling method, but it's a good one. And I'm wondering how fables can look in game form.
Visual media play by different rules than literature. The film 300 is an example of a visual fable. Appearances are often meant to be representative and idealistic. The story is painted in broad strokes, skimming over details to keep theme front-and-center. Action scenes are filled with purpose, emphasizing the primary theme (courage and resilience). A fable-game can have all the same elements as other games, but the emphasis is different.
One last point: fables aim at truth. To say that they focus on ideals and representations is not to say they disregard reality. They are aimed at reality, but reveal it in a fundamentally different way. If plain, straightforward language was enough to illuminate our world, we would have no need of art. Fables use bare caricatures to communicate the essences which mathematical descriptions miss.
Sorry if this post feels incomplete. I'm a bit distracted today.
Friday, February 06, 2009
game theaters
Thinking about how the game industry's employment models relate to the film industry's models (I'm not sure the two are similar enough to use the same methods), I got to wondering if the game industry could make use of a theater system or something similar.
Ultimately, films end up on DVDs, iTunes, TV, etc. That's where long-term profits come from. But the film industry relies heavily on short-term sales in the form of movie theater tickets. Generally speaking, films are not available as ownable copies until after they have had a run in theaters.
Could games use a similar financial model?
Right now, games go straight from development to ownable copies. It could almost certainly be different, but should it be? What are the alternatives?
Theater gaming could work. Whereas 50+ people can view a movie in a theater, far fewer can simultaneously play a game (currently, anyway). That said, more and more multiplayer games can support 16-32 simultaneous players. I expect charging that many people for an hour or two of playtime on a giant screen in a dark theater (perhaps with rumbling seats, scoreboards on the back of seats or on the walls, permanent theater records, etc) before a game's release to discs and downloads could prove profitable. How many people would pay to join a theater tournament for a new game, ala Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4, for both the experience and for a chance to hold that particular theater's permanent records for that game's competitions? Many, I'm sure.
What are some other possibilities?
Ultimately, films end up on DVDs, iTunes, TV, etc. That's where long-term profits come from. But the film industry relies heavily on short-term sales in the form of movie theater tickets. Generally speaking, films are not available as ownable copies until after they have had a run in theaters.
Could games use a similar financial model?
Right now, games go straight from development to ownable copies. It could almost certainly be different, but should it be? What are the alternatives?
Theater gaming could work. Whereas 50+ people can view a movie in a theater, far fewer can simultaneously play a game (currently, anyway). That said, more and more multiplayer games can support 16-32 simultaneous players. I expect charging that many people for an hour or two of playtime on a giant screen in a dark theater (perhaps with rumbling seats, scoreboards on the back of seats or on the walls, permanent theater records, etc) before a game's release to discs and downloads could prove profitable. How many people would pay to join a theater tournament for a new game, ala Halo 3 or Call of Duty 4, for both the experience and for a chance to hold that particular theater's permanent records for that game's competitions? Many, I'm sure.
What are some other possibilities?
Anyway Tales
At different points in my life, I've written short stories and poetry. I even started a novel when I was a kid, but quickly realized what a pain in the arse that would be, haha. And of course I've long written lyrics for my music (I've been songwriting about 15 years or so).
Well, I've decided to create a second blog on which to post that stuff. Partially because I'm a reclusive introvert and little, if any, of it is likely to get published otherwise. And partially to coax me back into writing. I still write lyrics all the time, since I'm always making new music (I have too much), but I'd like to get back into making short stories and maybe poetry as well.
Anyway, I don't intend this new fiction blog to be as regular as the game blog. But maybe two or three times a week I'll try to post something. I'll probably have to write new stories and poems, since I either can't find or don't like most of my old ones. Of course, I just said that's half the point, didn't I? Lyrics I have plenty of, so perhaps I'll post a couple lyrics and one of something else each week.
If Myspace or some other site will let me upload mp3s for free and embed those songs in my blog posts, then I'll show you how the music goes to the lyrics. I'm not a great performer, but I'm a good creator.
As it says at the top of that new blog, I welcome criticism. Little of this stuff has ever been reviewed by anyone, so I'm sure it could all be improved.
Anyway, you can go to the site at any time through my profile or in the sidebar links as my fiction.
Well, I've decided to create a second blog on which to post that stuff. Partially because I'm a reclusive introvert and little, if any, of it is likely to get published otherwise. And partially to coax me back into writing. I still write lyrics all the time, since I'm always making new music (I have too much), but I'd like to get back into making short stories and maybe poetry as well.
Anyway, I don't intend this new fiction blog to be as regular as the game blog. But maybe two or three times a week I'll try to post something. I'll probably have to write new stories and poems, since I either can't find or don't like most of my old ones. Of course, I just said that's half the point, didn't I? Lyrics I have plenty of, so perhaps I'll post a couple lyrics and one of something else each week.
If Myspace or some other site will let me upload mp3s for free and embed those songs in my blog posts, then I'll show you how the music goes to the lyrics. I'm not a great performer, but I'm a good creator.
As it says at the top of that new blog, I welcome criticism. Little of this stuff has ever been reviewed by anyone, so I'm sure it could all be improved.
Anyway, you can go to the site at any time through my profile or in the sidebar links as my fiction.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
old fogies
Looking at that picture of General Patton in a previous post, it occurs to me that game protagonists are rarely, if ever, old. James Bond might be the only character over 40 that I've ever played as in a video game. Of course, I don't play slow-paced detective games.
It makes sense that the majority of protagonists would be young, just as they are in films. Young people have more mobility, sharper reflexes, room for new romantic relationships, more to learn and more to discover about themselves, etc. But is this lack of elderly player-characters an odd gap?
Some elderly traits could make for interesting story elements and gameplay twists. For example: long and tested relationships, a focus on younger generations, limited ability to flee or pursue, a patient pace, extensive familiarity with certain places and things, a value system at odds with current events and culture, preference for old tools and strategies, etc.
It's not that I think old people should be represented. I just think old protagonists could offer gameplay not possible with younger characters. It's a possibility to keep in mind when starting a new game.
It makes sense that the majority of protagonists would be young, just as they are in films. Young people have more mobility, sharper reflexes, room for new romantic relationships, more to learn and more to discover about themselves, etc. But is this lack of elderly player-characters an odd gap?
Some elderly traits could make for interesting story elements and gameplay twists. For example: long and tested relationships, a focus on younger generations, limited ability to flee or pursue, a patient pace, extensive familiarity with certain places and things, a value system at odds with current events and culture, preference for old tools and strategies, etc.
It's not that I think old people should be represented. I just think old protagonists could offer gameplay not possible with younger characters. It's a possibility to keep in mind when starting a new game.
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
the graphical plateau
Pete wonders why he seems to care less about graphics in games these days than he used to. Here's my theory.
It's a natural response to industry development. Graphics in the beginning sucked. Primitive graphics are fine for some games, but detrimental for others. The higher the industry bar is raised, the more sorts of games that can succeed with standard or slightly-substandard graphics and the fewer games that require top-of-the-line graphics. At this point, the bar has been raised high enough that most game concepts are viable at the standard graphical level.
It's a natural response to industry development. Graphics in the beginning sucked. Primitive graphics are fine for some games, but detrimental for others. The higher the industry bar is raised, the more sorts of games that can succeed with standard or slightly-substandard graphics and the fewer games that require top-of-the-line graphics. At this point, the bar has been raised high enough that most game concepts are viable at the standard graphical level.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
matchmaking by values
Ah, the immortal hardcore-casual debate. Look, there are two kinds of gamers:
this guy
... and this guy.
Alright, so it's not that simple, but you get my point.
For many gamers, the greatest thrill is found in achievement; beating the odds, surpassing all obstacles, being better than your fellows, and (above all) winning. Such people don't just handle struggle, they embrace it. The harder the challenge, the greater the achievement.
For other gamers, like me, the greatest thrills are found in unexpected moment-to-moment experiences. While other folks are busting their butts for trophies and bragging rights, we're on the sideline enjoying hot dogs and cheerleaders. Sure, we're out to achieve goals to, but we're taking our time about it, going the scenic route, loving the distractions, and laughing as we tackle challenges in the most inefficient ways.
Why, oh why, do developers keep shoving us together?
Don't get me wrong. The best multiplayer systems capitalize on the existence of different playstyles by enabling cooperative roles suited to those playstyles. But it's ridiculous that matchmaking programs and other multiplayer systems rarely help players of similar gaming values to find each other.
Simply allowing players to check a box in your matchmaker for "hardcore" or "recreational" does not help, since everyone has a different understanding of what those labels mean. Simply enabling the existence of guilds for every type without helping players find the guilds that fit them is not enough. Sites like GamerDNA help, but only a fraction of your players will know about it or be interested in an account on a peripheral site.
I hate listening to another player tell me I'm suppose to play a class a particular way, complaining about the lack of coordination, bragging about what a badass he is, and so on. And players like that hate playing with people who don't stick to optimal strategies, who don't put in the practice to get headshots every time, who don't know all the slang and every scrap of knowledge about the game, people who laugh at defeat.
For Pete's sake, let us play with people we enjoy! When I log onto World at War on XBL and there are almost a quarter of a million people playing too, there's no reason we all have to be in the same match pool. More people would group in MMOs if they were not always having to roll the dice and hope this group won't be full of obsessive jerks or lazy idiots.
this guy
... and this guy.
Alright, so it's not that simple, but you get my point.
For many gamers, the greatest thrill is found in achievement; beating the odds, surpassing all obstacles, being better than your fellows, and (above all) winning. Such people don't just handle struggle, they embrace it. The harder the challenge, the greater the achievement.
For other gamers, like me, the greatest thrills are found in unexpected moment-to-moment experiences. While other folks are busting their butts for trophies and bragging rights, we're on the sideline enjoying hot dogs and cheerleaders. Sure, we're out to achieve goals to, but we're taking our time about it, going the scenic route, loving the distractions, and laughing as we tackle challenges in the most inefficient ways.
Why, oh why, do developers keep shoving us together?
Don't get me wrong. The best multiplayer systems capitalize on the existence of different playstyles by enabling cooperative roles suited to those playstyles. But it's ridiculous that matchmaking programs and other multiplayer systems rarely help players of similar gaming values to find each other.
Simply allowing players to check a box in your matchmaker for "hardcore" or "recreational" does not help, since everyone has a different understanding of what those labels mean. Simply enabling the existence of guilds for every type without helping players find the guilds that fit them is not enough. Sites like GamerDNA help, but only a fraction of your players will know about it or be interested in an account on a peripheral site.
I hate listening to another player tell me I'm suppose to play a class a particular way, complaining about the lack of coordination, bragging about what a badass he is, and so on. And players like that hate playing with people who don't stick to optimal strategies, who don't put in the practice to get headshots every time, who don't know all the slang and every scrap of knowledge about the game, people who laugh at defeat.
For Pete's sake, let us play with people we enjoy! When I log onto World at War on XBL and there are almost a quarter of a million people playing too, there's no reason we all have to be in the same match pool. More people would group in MMOs if they were not always having to roll the dice and hope this group won't be full of obsessive jerks or lazy idiots.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Godfather 2 interview: The Don's View
One of the more dynamic games of early 2009 is EA's The Godfather II, due out this month. The first Godfather game was an interesting mix of a GTA-style open world and RPG character progression; set in the Godfather universe, of course. I enjoyed it.
The sequel seems to have made many improvements. A major difference between that first Godfather game and this one is a new feature called The Don's View. Associate Producer Wes Culver answered some questions I had about this fresh aspect of the game.
How does the player defend his turf? Is it as simple as taking a cut in profits each day or week to hire guards? Is there any tradeoff involved?
Do different gangs have different general strategies, which the player will compete against?
How many cities does The Godfather 2 include? Do they all share the same types of rackets and such?
Your site states: "When taking over a venue in a monopoly all connected venues in the monopoly will be revealed to the player." Does this mean only that the connections between businesses will be revealed? Or does it mean that venues are not marked at all in The Don's View until they are discovered?
How many different game perks are available to be acquired through controlling monopolies? Will the player likely control all of them by the end of the game?
Does the gameworld remain active while the player is in The Don's View? I noticed some buildings on fire in the screenshot on your site.
Can you offer some examples of different strategies you've seen players take when using The Don's View?
Here's a GameTrailers video of The Don's View:
As I said before, The Godfather II seems to be a dynamic game. Whether you go after the enemy's Made Men or businesses first, the order in which you take Crime Rings, the order in which you take businesses, the stats you give your character, the Made Men you choose and how you use them... all of these things combine to give each player a relatively personal experience and add replayability. I'm looking forward to the game.
My thanks to Culver and EA for the interview.
So what do you think?
The sequel seems to have made many improvements. A major difference between that first Godfather game and this one is a new feature called The Don's View. Associate Producer Wes Culver answered some questions I had about this fresh aspect of the game.
How does the player defend his turf? Is it as simple as taking a cut in profits each day or week to hire guards? Is there any tradeoff involved?
As a Don, there are several different ways the player can defend the businesses he owns (besides physically going there himself). First off, as soon as a player takes over a new business, he will immediately want to add guards to protect that business. Having guards allocated to a business will keep your rivals at bay, as an unguarded one is ripe for the taking.
When guards alone are not enough to ward off a powerful attack, the player can choose to send his made men to a business to defend it. Made men are much more powerful than regular guards, and you can tell them to defend a business whether it’s being attacked or not. If it’s currently under attack, they’ll kill off the enemy attackers. If it’s not, they’ll be ready and waiting for battle.
As with most things, there are tradeoffs involved with each method of defending the player’s turf. Guards cost money, so they will eat into your profits. Made men are free, but there a limited number of them and when one is sent to defend a business, that’s one less personal bodyguard for the player’s character.
Do different gangs have different general strategies, which the player will compete against?
Each rival family does have a certain set of traits that causes them to have varying strategies when competing against the player. For example, one family might be obsessed with money, so they’ll go after the businesses which generate the most income. Another family has a weakspot for prostitutes, so they’ll go after the brothels. The traits of each family are subtle, but they do add a bit of variety while the player progresses throughout the game.
How many cities does The Godfather 2 include? Do they all share the same types of rackets and such?
There are three different cities in The Godfather II and all have a pretty good variety of different types of fronts and rackets. Certain groups of rackets – called “Crime Rings” – will give you a significant bonus if you own every business within that crime ring. We focused on crime rings when deciding which businesses are located in each of the three cities. Some crime rings can be completed in a single city, while others may be spread across multiple cities so they’re harder to complete. All in all, I believe the variety is balanced well.
Your site states: "When taking over a venue in a monopoly all connected venues in the monopoly will be revealed to the player." Does this mean only that the connections between businesses will be revealed? Or does it mean that venues are not marked at all in The Don's View until they are discovered?
Businesses become “discovered” when the family that owns each are revealed. The way new families are revealed is by progressing through the story missions of the game. However, a player may run into the situation where he took over a business where related ones have yet to be revealed (because the family that owns it has yet to be revealed). In that case, those businesses will be visible, but additional information (like the actual location) may not be accessible to the player until the family is revealed.
How many different game perks are available to be acquired through controlling monopolies? Will the player likely control all of them by the end of the game?
There are a total of 9 different Crime Rings (monopolies was a term we used early on, but have since renamed them “crime rings”) and each carries its own special bonus. And yes, by the end of the game, the player will control every single one. The player will be one extremely powerful Don by the end.
Does the gameworld remain active while the player is in The Don's View? I noticed some buildings on fire in the screenshot on your site.
When you enter the Don’s View, the game world is not active. Buildings that are under attack or that have been bombed will have their own unique animations (such as being shown as on fire in the Don’s View), however, game time is actually paused.
Early on in the design process, we were considering both alternatives, but keeping the world active while the player is in the Don’s View ultimately led to too many complications and questions to be answered. Acting like a Don and using the Don’s View is already a robust system and we didn’t want to overwhelm people with too much complexity.
Can you offer some examples of different strategies you've seen players take when using The Don's View?
Throughout the development process, we had many potential customers come into our office and participate in focus tests by playing the game from start to finish like a player at home would. Each had their own way of attacking other businesses using the Don’s View.
As an example, some players love to go after the rival made men- take them out to weaken the families before expanding to much. Others would attack the businesses that provided the most money each day, so they would have more cash flow to hire guards and upgrade their character and family. Many also would specifically target a certain Crime Ring so they could get the bonus, so there is a great deal of different strategies each player can employ.
Here's a GameTrailers video of The Don's View:
As I said before, The Godfather II seems to be a dynamic game. Whether you go after the enemy's Made Men or businesses first, the order in which you take Crime Rings, the order in which you take businesses, the stats you give your character, the Made Men you choose and how you use them... all of these things combine to give each player a relatively personal experience and add replayability. I'm looking forward to the game.
My thanks to Culver and EA for the interview.
So what do you think?
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Twittered
I decided to give Twitter a try. To be honest, I have no idea what to expect. I don't really know what it's about, but I'm guessing it's kind of like a delayed IM.
Anyway, feel free to follow me (username: hallower1980) if you have it, and I'll add yours from there. Any advice is welcome too.
Anyway, feel free to follow me (username: hallower1980) if you have it, and I'll add yours from there. Any advice is welcome too.
Friday, January 30, 2009
don't ignore player success
In the Call of Duty: World at War single-player/co-op campaign, enemies spawn in an infinite stream until the player pushes forward to seize the objective. That means that how many you kill is irrelevant. They keep coming until your player stands in the targeted location.
Medal of Honor: Airborne does it differently. If you stand in one place and keep shooting enemies, they'll continue to spawn for a while, prolonging the experience. But the game eventually rewards you for your kills by ceasing to spawn new enemies for that location.
These are different kinds of games -- one involves pushing forward on a linear path, while the other lets the player parachute onto any location of the battlefield and approach objectives from many angles. But regardless of that difference, I'd say Airborne's spawn method is better. Even if reaching locations or destroying AA guns (or whatever) is the main goal, kills should be rewarded.
Every activity central to gameplay should be rewarded. No accomplishment should be completed overshadowed by another.
Medal of Honor: Airborne does it differently. If you stand in one place and keep shooting enemies, they'll continue to spawn for a while, prolonging the experience. But the game eventually rewards you for your kills by ceasing to spawn new enemies for that location.
These are different kinds of games -- one involves pushing forward on a linear path, while the other lets the player parachute onto any location of the battlefield and approach objectives from many angles. But regardless of that difference, I'd say Airborne's spawn method is better. Even if reaching locations or destroying AA guns (or whatever) is the main goal, kills should be rewarded.
Every activity central to gameplay should be rewarded. No accomplishment should be completed overshadowed by another.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
buy fewer games
It's a shame that I have to offer this advice, because I believe this year, like last year, will be a great year for games. But I care about you guys, so I'm going to say it.
Buy fewer games this year. Start saving more money.
Reports are coming out that the American Treasury has been printing currency these past months on a scale far beyond anything it has done in our nation's history. Printing was already unusually high over the past 10 years, but now it's skyrocketing at a dangerous pace. As a result, the American economy is very likely to suffer record-setting inflation. The dollar's value is about to plummet.
I'm sure there are many exaggerations floating around right now, but this is undeniably a very serious situation. For a certainty, the money you're already saving is not going to buy as much as it normally would. Most of us are already saving more money than usual because of the troubled economy. I'm saying this is an almost-certain indicator that things are going to get worse before they get better.
So take care of yourself. Be more frugal. Spend less money than you normally would. Unfortunately, that means letting some good games slip through the cracks this year. Hopefully, you'll be able to pick them up to enjoy later.
Buy fewer games this year. Start saving more money.
Reports are coming out that the American Treasury has been printing currency these past months on a scale far beyond anything it has done in our nation's history. Printing was already unusually high over the past 10 years, but now it's skyrocketing at a dangerous pace. As a result, the American economy is very likely to suffer record-setting inflation. The dollar's value is about to plummet.
I'm sure there are many exaggerations floating around right now, but this is undeniably a very serious situation. For a certainty, the money you're already saving is not going to buy as much as it normally would. Most of us are already saving more money than usual because of the troubled economy. I'm saying this is an almost-certain indicator that things are going to get worse before they get better.
So take care of yourself. Be more frugal. Spend less money than you normally would. Unfortunately, that means letting some good games slip through the cracks this year. Hopefully, you'll be able to pick them up to enjoy later.
preview XBL premium themes
Why doesn't Microsoft let you preview premium themes for you 360 dashboard, either on XBL or on the web? Idiocy, plain and simple.
There's simply no excuse, and the strangest part is that more people would buy premium themes if they could see what they were getting. Everyone expects to be able to preview, and Microsoft would make more money if they offered previews, yet they don't. So, like I said, idiocy.
Anyway, after 10-15 minutes of failed searching on Google and the Xbox Live Marketplace, I finally ran across a thread on the Xbox.com forums in which someone (not a Microsoft rep, of course) pointed out this site that lets you preview the premium themes. A huge thank you to whoever created the site.
I'm still using the freeChristmas *cough* Holiday theme for now, but the premium themes I like the most are Tomb Raider: Underworld [1] and Halo Wars. The Forza 2 theme is awesome for racing fans.
There's simply no excuse, and the strangest part is that more people would buy premium themes if they could see what they were getting. Everyone expects to be able to preview, and Microsoft would make more money if they offered previews, yet they don't. So, like I said, idiocy.
Anyway, after 10-15 minutes of failed searching on Google and the Xbox Live Marketplace, I finally ran across a thread on the Xbox.com forums in which someone (not a Microsoft rep, of course) pointed out this site that lets you preview the premium themes. A huge thank you to whoever created the site.
I'm still using the free
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
gear on the fly
I picked up Call of Duty: World at War yesterday. After only an hour or so of playing, I joined a friend in the multiplayer mode that involves fighting zombies from a boarded up house. There are a number of things that make it a lot of fun with friends, but one element in particular has me wondering if it could be applied to campaign gameplay.
The player gains points for killing zombies and repairing defenses. Headshots and melee kills award more points than regular kills. You spend these points on weapons during gameplay.
It struck me as a relatively novel system. First, you're purchasing aid while enemies are still coming at you, during brief moments of respite between attacks. Unlike in Bioshock or in other games, events are not paused as you purchase help. And second, you're earning the credits for these purchases constantly and automatically (not in the form of pick-ups or something similar). Combined, this makes for a fun and unique experience.
I'd love to see a similar system used in single-player or co-op campaigns. It could make a game wonderfully dynamic.
The player gains points for killing zombies and repairing defenses. Headshots and melee kills award more points than regular kills. You spend these points on weapons during gameplay.
It struck me as a relatively novel system. First, you're purchasing aid while enemies are still coming at you, during brief moments of respite between attacks. Unlike in Bioshock or in other games, events are not paused as you purchase help. And second, you're earning the credits for these purchases constantly and automatically (not in the form of pick-ups or something similar). Combined, this makes for a fun and unique experience.
I'd love to see a similar system used in single-player or co-op campaigns. It could make a game wonderfully dynamic.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
hopes of 2009
I've been unable to think of anything fresh these past couple of days, so I'm just going to list the games I'm watching in 2009 and give some brief thoughts on each. I haven't heard or read anything about some of these in a while. I'm not certain about any of them, but they all have my hopeful.
GODFATHER 2
I'm hoping to have a copy of this in the coming weeks. The first Godfather game is fun, but lacks depth. The sequel seems to have far more dynamics, including rival gangs that will try to take your territories while you're taking theirs. Those dynamics should add some replayability and personalized gameplay. We'll see.
BACKBREAKER
Finally, someone's trying to put the physical dynamics and unpredictability of real American football into a video game. Finally, you can take pleasure in some hits being harder than others. And the developers are obviously trying to shake up other elements of the game as well. I haven't seen any updates in a while, but I have high hopes for this one.
THE AGENCY
James Bond (007) on one side, John McClane (Die Hard) on the other. True FPS action and over-the-top, straight-faced silliness. This seems to be an MMO that drops a lot of the baggage that usually defines MMOs. It looks to be a lot of fun, and perhaps might even show the industry how to make games rather than rat mazes.
SECTION 8
I hadn't heard of this game until a few days ago. Players can drop onto any spot of the battlefield, a feature Medal of Honor: Airborne proved can be a lot of fun and adds replayability. Bots are provided for both offline and online fragfests. Multiplayer matches include the possibility of missions which coax players out of their usual routines. And the game seems to include a number of dynamics to spice things up. It's caught my interest.
FIGHT NIGHT ROUND 4
Round 3 is great, but Round 4 sounds like it will require more tactical thinking from the player. This could be a nice upgrade to a great series.
BORDERLANDS
A Mad Max setting with RPG-like advancement and a Diablo-esque loot system. Little has been shown yet, but I always love the combination of guns and cars. Placed in an open world, and my interest is peaked.
CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 2
... or whatever you want to call it. Call of Duty 4 is a monumental game -- a fun, intense single-player mode and the first multiplayer fragfest that I've thoroughly enjoyed since the original Perfect Dark. The customization and leveling in multiplayer was pure genius. Hopefully, Infinity Ward will push the genre, but not so much that they abandon what made their previous work great.
BLOODBOWL
Honestly, I know nothing about this one, except that it's based on a unique and brutal boardgame that I loved as a kid. Fast, brutal action and brazen silliness work so well together when artfully combined.
TOM CLANCY'S HAWX
Co-op dogfights in modern jets? Count me in. The game looks fun, but I'm left to wonder about replayability. Clear, concise missions can be fun, but I wouldn't buy the game unless there was something to do after I've completed all those missions. If HAWX includes enough dynamics and customization of gameplay, then this one could be a blast. It would be great if they'd allow players to select a vehicle for each single-player mission, the way MoH: Airborne allows players to select weapons.
GUITAR HERO: METALLICA
Yes, St. Anger sucked, and I don't much care for the new stuff either. But as a rocker raised on songs like "Don't Tread On Me", "Battery", and "Harvester of Sorrow", I can't wait to blare it through my TV and play along. These music games really are a unique and fun way to enjoy your favorite music. It doesn't hurt that Corrosion of Conformity, Children of Bodom, and other great bands have some tunes in this game.
GHOSTBUSTERS
Alright, so this one could be just a typically shallow and linear Hollywood hackjob. But hey, it's Ghostbusters! Coming from a film IP, it would be easy for the writers to prioritize a linear plot over interaction and personalization, but here's hoping it will turn out well. I'm glad the actors are all involved.
SACRED 2: FALLEN ANGEL
I half expect this to be mediocre, but it would be nice to play a Diablo-type game on a console for a change. I know they've been on consoles before, but this will be my first (not counting Too Human, which really isn't the same).
BRUTAL LEGEND: ROADHSHOW OF DESTRUCTION
I almost forgot this one! Brutal Legend is a tribute to the music that made my childhood. With many favorite musicians on board with development, and a comedic actor who has already dedicated many works to the subject (Jack Black), it's looking good. Once again, action mixed with comedy and over-the-top scenarios. As my old band's singer used to always say, "you better axe somebody!"
What have I forgotten? Halo Wars and Aliens: Colonial Marines could be cool, but I'm expecting them to be merely alright.
GODFATHER 2
I'm hoping to have a copy of this in the coming weeks. The first Godfather game is fun, but lacks depth. The sequel seems to have far more dynamics, including rival gangs that will try to take your territories while you're taking theirs. Those dynamics should add some replayability and personalized gameplay. We'll see.
BACKBREAKER
Finally, someone's trying to put the physical dynamics and unpredictability of real American football into a video game. Finally, you can take pleasure in some hits being harder than others. And the developers are obviously trying to shake up other elements of the game as well. I haven't seen any updates in a while, but I have high hopes for this one.
THE AGENCY
James Bond (007) on one side, John McClane (Die Hard) on the other. True FPS action and over-the-top, straight-faced silliness. This seems to be an MMO that drops a lot of the baggage that usually defines MMOs. It looks to be a lot of fun, and perhaps might even show the industry how to make games rather than rat mazes.
SECTION 8
I hadn't heard of this game until a few days ago. Players can drop onto any spot of the battlefield, a feature Medal of Honor: Airborne proved can be a lot of fun and adds replayability. Bots are provided for both offline and online fragfests. Multiplayer matches include the possibility of missions which coax players out of their usual routines. And the game seems to include a number of dynamics to spice things up. It's caught my interest.
FIGHT NIGHT ROUND 4
Round 3 is great, but Round 4 sounds like it will require more tactical thinking from the player. This could be a nice upgrade to a great series.
BORDERLANDS
A Mad Max setting with RPG-like advancement and a Diablo-esque loot system. Little has been shown yet, but I always love the combination of guns and cars. Placed in an open world, and my interest is peaked.
CALL OF DUTY: MODERN WARFARE 2
... or whatever you want to call it. Call of Duty 4 is a monumental game -- a fun, intense single-player mode and the first multiplayer fragfest that I've thoroughly enjoyed since the original Perfect Dark. The customization and leveling in multiplayer was pure genius. Hopefully, Infinity Ward will push the genre, but not so much that they abandon what made their previous work great.
BLOODBOWL
Honestly, I know nothing about this one, except that it's based on a unique and brutal boardgame that I loved as a kid. Fast, brutal action and brazen silliness work so well together when artfully combined.
TOM CLANCY'S HAWX
Co-op dogfights in modern jets? Count me in. The game looks fun, but I'm left to wonder about replayability. Clear, concise missions can be fun, but I wouldn't buy the game unless there was something to do after I've completed all those missions. If HAWX includes enough dynamics and customization of gameplay, then this one could be a blast. It would be great if they'd allow players to select a vehicle for each single-player mission, the way MoH: Airborne allows players to select weapons.
GUITAR HERO: METALLICA
Yes, St. Anger sucked, and I don't much care for the new stuff either. But as a rocker raised on songs like "Don't Tread On Me", "Battery", and "Harvester of Sorrow", I can't wait to blare it through my TV and play along. These music games really are a unique and fun way to enjoy your favorite music. It doesn't hurt that Corrosion of Conformity, Children of Bodom, and other great bands have some tunes in this game.
GHOSTBUSTERS
Alright, so this one could be just a typically shallow and linear Hollywood hackjob. But hey, it's Ghostbusters! Coming from a film IP, it would be easy for the writers to prioritize a linear plot over interaction and personalization, but here's hoping it will turn out well. I'm glad the actors are all involved.
SACRED 2: FALLEN ANGEL
I half expect this to be mediocre, but it would be nice to play a Diablo-type game on a console for a change. I know they've been on consoles before, but this will be my first (not counting Too Human, which really isn't the same).
BRUTAL LEGEND: ROADHSHOW OF DESTRUCTION
I almost forgot this one! Brutal Legend is a tribute to the music that made my childhood. With many favorite musicians on board with development, and a comedic actor who has already dedicated many works to the subject (Jack Black), it's looking good. Once again, action mixed with comedy and over-the-top scenarios. As my old band's singer used to always say, "you better axe somebody!"
What have I forgotten? Halo Wars and Aliens: Colonial Marines could be cool, but I'm expecting them to be merely alright.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
grand finale in multiplayer
One thing most multiplayer modes seem to be lacking is a grand finale. In deathmatch, capture the flag, king of the hill, and control points modes, tension does rise as one team nears the necessary score or time is running out. But the game ends with no special event. Whether by holding a control point or getting the last headshot, the end feels basically like the beginning.
I enjoy those traditional modes, but I'd like to see a mode or two in which each match ends with a bang. I'm sure there are countless ways it could be done, but I'll try to offer a quick example.
NUKE 'EM
The first scenario that pops into mind is teams of players racing and fighting to reach and fully control a bomb shelter, then nuking the other team.
Unlike Left 4 Dead, all members of a team must be present in the shelter and all members of the other team must be expelled from the shelter before the doors can be shut and the nuke detonated. Both teams would begin away from the compound, each with various spawn points on all sides of the map which are close to enemy spawn points. That splits the mode's goal into two: (1) reach and enter the compound, (2) defend the compound until all allies are in and expel all enemies. I don't doubt that the latter concept would need to be adjusted significantly during the prototype phase of design.
Since I love dynamics, I'd add plenty of environmental factors: neutral NPCs (aggressive or territorial), traps, etc.
The game ends with the shelter doors being quickly sealed. The nuke detonation wouldn't be a cutscene or long, but it would not be instantaneous either. That way, the teams have time to savor and dread the moment. It would look something like the detonation scene in The Sum of All Fears:
See what I mean?
I enjoy those traditional modes, but I'd like to see a mode or two in which each match ends with a bang. I'm sure there are countless ways it could be done, but I'll try to offer a quick example.
NUKE 'EM
The first scenario that pops into mind is teams of players racing and fighting to reach and fully control a bomb shelter, then nuking the other team.
Unlike Left 4 Dead, all members of a team must be present in the shelter and all members of the other team must be expelled from the shelter before the doors can be shut and the nuke detonated. Both teams would begin away from the compound, each with various spawn points on all sides of the map which are close to enemy spawn points. That splits the mode's goal into two: (1) reach and enter the compound, (2) defend the compound until all allies are in and expel all enemies. I don't doubt that the latter concept would need to be adjusted significantly during the prototype phase of design.
Since I love dynamics, I'd add plenty of environmental factors: neutral NPCs (aggressive or territorial), traps, etc.
The game ends with the shelter doors being quickly sealed. The nuke detonation wouldn't be a cutscene or long, but it would not be instantaneous either. That way, the teams have time to savor and dread the moment. It would look something like the detonation scene in The Sum of All Fears:
See what I mean?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
motion sensing gameplay
To be honest, I don't know much about Wii games. My sister has a Wii, but all I've played so far is Wii Sports, Wii Play, and Mario Kart. That said, the videos I've seen of other games lead me to believe that there's still a lot of untapped potential for the Wii's motion-sensing technology.
Running off Keira's post, I’d like to see games that don’t just give the player a small set of actions to use exclusively throughout the entire game. Instead, if the programming is simple enough, fill the game with interactions that will be intuitive but are specific to one or a few parts of the game.
If the arms and hands are very basically represented in a game, then simply directing those hands in intuitive motions could accomplish any number of tasks.
If the player sees a ladder, it would be intuitive to simply place a hand on one rung, then the other hand on the next rung, and back and forth as the character moves up or down. Any object could be grabbed by moving the hand over an object and closing the hand.
Even the relatively rudimentary motion-sensing technology of current consoles could be used to make open-ended, explorative gameplay in this way.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
in favor of gore and violence
I have mixed feelings about graphic violence in war games.
On the one hand, if you intend for a war game to be educational and didactic, then your depiction of war should be as realistically graphic as possible. There's a limit to how much reality most game consumers will take, of course. The full horrors of our world are not shown even in schools or on TV because relatively few people are willing to face absolutely everything. But the more education that can be sneaked in, the better.
On the other hand, it's easy and wrong to relish the gore too much. Some enjoyment is benign, I think. Young boys cross-culturally play war games (not speaking of video games), and enjoyment of violence goes hand-in-hand with that instinct. A thrill from battle is natural, including gory signs of victory. But that, like any instinctual desire, has a proper place and manner. The appetite for violence can and should be directed, moderated, and bloodlust (gore) with it.
Enjoyment of gore is founded in a taste for victory, I believe. When you see the head of your sniper's victim explode like a watermelon, it can be more satisfying feedback than simply seeing the victim fall down. When your battleaxe hits home and you hear a pained cry mixed with the sound of flesh tearing and bone shattering, that's a taste of competitive success.
I have great respect for films in which bullet wounds are intentionally invisible or merely red stains (like John Wayne films, or The Hunt for Red October). Gore can be good feedback or good education, even integral to storytelling, but subtlety can also be good. The absence of gore can better focus the audience's attention on other elements. Game designers should always ask which way better suits their particular game.
Anyway! As usual, I'm getting off track.
That article made me think of the irony that the game restrictions intended to honor social concerns are very often in the way of serving those values.
For example, children cannot be killed in games. Children in games like Neverwinter Nights, Fable 2, and Fallout 3 are invulnerable (yes, it's sad that I know this). Bioshock allows the player to kill the child-like "Little Sisters", but the screen fades out when this happens. Truth-conscious war games have yet to represent the reality that combatants are commonly children (often teenagers, sometimes younger) or even include them as bystanders. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is getting a sequel, but what are the chances it will have kids with assault rifles, militants residing with their families, or terrorists stationing supplies and soldiers in schools and churches?
Yet what would push home the nature of urban combat to gamers better than having to face women and children with guns?
Rather than forbid gore and uncomfortable scenarios, those interested in socially productive gaming should encourage developers to include such things and provide intuitive commentary.
Intuitive commentary means unspoken commentary; gameworld consequences and reactions beyond dialogue. Soldiers visibly shaken by the deaths of their comrades. Non-player combatants being crippled, rather than slain. The dead abandoned, their corpses stripped by poor locals and nibbled on by crows and dogs. Wailing mothers and grandmothers. Lost, crying children.
Intuitive commentary means reward and punishment. Save an ally and he might watch your back a little more closely. Spare what enemies you can and you might receive valuable information, face softer resistance from noncombatants, or even make a friend. Kill too many noncombatants and your allies will turn against you (the game ends... restart). Kill some kid who's aiming a gun at you and expect the family to seek revenge. Place a landmine, and don't expect to be able to control who dies by it.
As I said earlier, I acknowledge that there is a limit to what consumers of entertainment are willing to endure. Films like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down have demonstrated that the average consumer will endure a great deal if the presentation of that uncomfortable content is artful and meaningful. Games, being interactive, can probably not push quite as far, but are still capable of much more than the industry has generally been willing to explore as of yet.
I'm not saying all war games should be seriously toned and educational. I'm just saying that if you're making a serious game, gore and other nasty elements can be used toward noble ends. They don't have to be about feeding immoderate impulses. The industry is currently bound by certain social restrictions, but designers will have more and more room to explore mature content if they can demonstrate to society how it might be done tastefully and productively.
On the one hand, if you intend for a war game to be educational and didactic, then your depiction of war should be as realistically graphic as possible. There's a limit to how much reality most game consumers will take, of course. The full horrors of our world are not shown even in schools or on TV because relatively few people are willing to face absolutely everything. But the more education that can be sneaked in, the better.
On the other hand, it's easy and wrong to relish the gore too much. Some enjoyment is benign, I think. Young boys cross-culturally play war games (not speaking of video games), and enjoyment of violence goes hand-in-hand with that instinct. A thrill from battle is natural, including gory signs of victory. But that, like any instinctual desire, has a proper place and manner. The appetite for violence can and should be directed, moderated, and bloodlust (gore) with it.
Enjoyment of gore is founded in a taste for victory, I believe. When you see the head of your sniper's victim explode like a watermelon, it can be more satisfying feedback than simply seeing the victim fall down. When your battleaxe hits home and you hear a pained cry mixed with the sound of flesh tearing and bone shattering, that's a taste of competitive success.
I have great respect for films in which bullet wounds are intentionally invisible or merely red stains (like John Wayne films, or The Hunt for Red October). Gore can be good feedback or good education, even integral to storytelling, but subtlety can also be good. The absence of gore can better focus the audience's attention on other elements. Game designers should always ask which way better suits their particular game.
Anyway! As usual, I'm getting off track.
That article made me think of the irony that the game restrictions intended to honor social concerns are very often in the way of serving those values.
For example, children cannot be killed in games. Children in games like Neverwinter Nights, Fable 2, and Fallout 3 are invulnerable (yes, it's sad that I know this). Bioshock allows the player to kill the child-like "Little Sisters", but the screen fades out when this happens. Truth-conscious war games have yet to represent the reality that combatants are commonly children (often teenagers, sometimes younger) or even include them as bystanders. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is getting a sequel, but what are the chances it will have kids with assault rifles, militants residing with their families, or terrorists stationing supplies and soldiers in schools and churches?
Yet what would push home the nature of urban combat to gamers better than having to face women and children with guns?
Rather than forbid gore and uncomfortable scenarios, those interested in socially productive gaming should encourage developers to include such things and provide intuitive commentary.
Intuitive commentary means unspoken commentary; gameworld consequences and reactions beyond dialogue. Soldiers visibly shaken by the deaths of their comrades. Non-player combatants being crippled, rather than slain. The dead abandoned, their corpses stripped by poor locals and nibbled on by crows and dogs. Wailing mothers and grandmothers. Lost, crying children.
Intuitive commentary means reward and punishment. Save an ally and he might watch your back a little more closely. Spare what enemies you can and you might receive valuable information, face softer resistance from noncombatants, or even make a friend. Kill too many noncombatants and your allies will turn against you (the game ends... restart). Kill some kid who's aiming a gun at you and expect the family to seek revenge. Place a landmine, and don't expect to be able to control who dies by it.
As I said earlier, I acknowledge that there is a limit to what consumers of entertainment are willing to endure. Films like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, and Black Hawk Down have demonstrated that the average consumer will endure a great deal if the presentation of that uncomfortable content is artful and meaningful. Games, being interactive, can probably not push quite as far, but are still capable of much more than the industry has generally been willing to explore as of yet.
I'm not saying all war games should be seriously toned and educational. I'm just saying that if you're making a serious game, gore and other nasty elements can be used toward noble ends. They don't have to be about feeding immoderate impulses. The industry is currently bound by certain social restrictions, but designers will have more and more room to explore mature content if they can demonstrate to society how it might be done tastefully and productively.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
LOTR: Conquest -- lesson in frustration
Dynamic games usually get better over time. But the more I play LOTR: Conquest, the more I want to smash something. I've never cursed at my television so much.
Conquest is mediocre, bordering on bad (I originally said "it sucks", but that was probably overly harsh). Like Too Human, the concept had great potential, but the actuality falls very short. Some of that potential is lost to ridiculously obvious flaws, some to failure to go as far as its predecessors (Star Wars: Battlefront 1 & 2, by the same studio) went years ago.
The most obvious difference between LOTR: Conquest and the Star Wars: Battlefront games is that Conquest involves melee combat. That alone has a huge impact on gameplay, because it means half the classes are not nearly as dependent on aiming. That's not necessarily bad, but it led to some feature decisions which annoy me and every other player I've spoken with to no end. For one, you will often be knocked down and then attacked while you're helpless on the ground (getting back up isn't immediate). Melee also involves combos, and players seem to be just as helpless while being attacked by a combo chain... particularly while being attacked by multiple foes.
Helplessness is not a fun feeling in an action game, but it's rampant in LOTR: Conquest. Expect to spend a lot of time on the ground or unable to block or attack as your hacked to pieces by a warrior. This problem alone undermines the game's good elements almost entirely.
Expect to unpredictably fall off ledges and see your allies diving to their deaths. I usually play as a scout or archer. The scout is a lot of fun, but the animation for backstabbing both moves and turns the player's character. You can't backstab anyone near a ledge, because the animation's likely to take you right into the chasm. Sometimes you'll think you're far enough away, but you're not. I've also found my scout sliding into corners or enemies during the backstab animation, if my scout is on sloped ground. AI allies are constantly falling over edges as they charge into enemies or turn from a fight.
Whereas SW:B has five classes per faction and four factions, Conquest has only four per faction and two factions. Going with four classes isn't technically an omission, since Conquest is a separate IP, but you'll feel the absence of the former's variety. It's an exponential effect -- one class isn't just one experience; how it combines with each other class, playing as and against, is a separate experience.
SW: Battlefront also gave each faction unique classes -- flying jet troopers, wookiees, engineers with bolt blasters, rolling and shielded droidekas, pilots with mortar launchers, super battle droids, etc. Pandemic apparently chose "safe" over "interesting" this time around, and the game is weaker for it. That said, the four classes provided are fairly well-designed, but there are significant problems.
One of those problems is the mage's shield spell. I can accept that it makes the mage invulnerable from ranged attacks, considering that he can't attack while shielding. What I can't accept is how often mage shields blind everyone to what's going on around them, especially on particular maps like Pelennor Fields. When mages are shielding, archers are shooting poison and fire arrows, and scouts are tossing fire bombs all in the same area, good luck trying to tell who's an enemy and who's an ally when they're not right in your face.
Horses and wargs are not much fun, in my opinion. Expect to be knocked off quickly. Oliphants can be fun as lumbering giants until you try to turn more than slightly; how to do so is not intuitive, if manageable. Trolls and Ents are fun. You can be taken down quickly if someone sneaks up behind you and climbs up your back (a very simple quick-time event), so you have to remember to swing around frequently, but that's a well-deserved balance. It can sometimes be hard to see what you're fighting.
Don't expect any neutral characters, like the Tusken Raiders in SW:B, or monsters. But one great dynamic I have noticed is a lever to temporarily drop a bridge on the Moria map. It lets you drop the bridge from beneath enemy players if you time it right, though I haven't seen it used to that effect yet.
Some heroes are more fun than others, but all are disappointing. Most are basically regular classes with more damage. Sarumon feels like a hero; less so Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Sauron is ridiculously similar to Aragorn and other warriors, which completely saps the thrill of playing with him. The mode in which all players are heroes is fun, though it would be more so if there were AI soldier regulars alongside. With the limited number of characters in the battle, it's common for players to be singled out by everyone and ganged up on. Trolls, ents, the Balrog, and such are more fun. I found a sitting troll once or twice that I was able to press RB to become, but most trolls and ents seem to be uncontrollable.
The maps often feel too big for the number of combatants. The battles simply are not as intense as in SW:B 1 & 2. This might be due to the layout of the maps, but I think the problem is that Pandemic made the maps bigger than in previous games without also increasing the number of combatants. Are there even as many combatants? There are usually enemies around, but I see fewer crowds than in the old games. Of course, the maps being big doesn't prevent the game from occasionally respawning you right in the thick of battle, so you die before you realize what's going on.
More than a few times, I've died by running off the battefield. Star Wars: Battlefront made it clear where the battlefield ends. But knowing where it ends on a map like Pelennor Fields is not so clear. It's easy to charge your oliphant or warg headlong into an instant and needless death. You'll see combat off the battlefield that's purely animation. And if you're fighitng in the fields in front of Isengard, isn't it natural to think you can go right up to the city's gates, even if you can't enter? You'd eventually learn, of course. Anyway, why not just warp players back to a checkpoint, or forcibly turn the player?
This reviewer sums up the AI nicely: "I get it, the game was obviously built with multiplayer in mind, but seriously half the time it may as well be you versus every orc in Mordor." The AI seems meant only to tread water until the player completes his objectives. And it is common to press forward and find that nobody came with you. Just as importantly, single-player battles don't allow you to get lost in the thick of chaos, which was much of the thrill of previous battlefield games. Being the only major force in the battle makes it a very different kind of game (which isn't necessarily bad, but seems so in this case). In fact, the AI seems programmed to focus on the player whenever he or she is near. Run into a crowd, and all eyes turn toward you, regardless of how many allies are nearby. And NPCs like to jump off cliffs, as I mentioned before.
The graphics look better in screenshots than in actual gameplay. That's not due to framerate issues or any technical issue. It's a design issue. There might be a number of differences between its art and SW:B's, but ultimately Conquest isn't much prettier (if at all) than that game released back in 2004.
There's isn't much story, since this is an action game, but I do like actor Hugo Weaving's narrated introductions and commentary (Elrond). Since this is a game based on a popular literary and film IP, the use of such scenes to inspire the player makes good sense.
Right now, I feel much like many Metallica fans felt when the St. Anger album was released -- I'm stunned to get such garbage from a consistently good team. I consider Star Wars: Battlefront to be one of the greatest action games of all time. It was so dynamic, so well paced, so well balanced. This game makes me want to throw something at my TV. The potential was there... and now it's gone.
LOTR: Conquest will never be a great game now, but perhaps it could still be made into a good game. Here are some changes that could be made via a patch:
<<<>>>
If you never played either of the Star Wars: Battlefront games, you'll probably be much more satisfied with the game than I am. Pandemic mysteriously failed to repeat many great elements of their past battlefield games, and it's hard for someone who played them to see Conquest with fresh eyes.
The game does have its moments. Seeing player-controlled ents and trolls go head-to-head is awesome. Interrupting would-be attackers with my warg in Capture the Ring mode is another memorable moment. Sneaking up to backstab someone or landing a nice headshot while zooming with the bow are a lot of fun. It's just the excessive frustration in between fun moments and certain lackluster elements (like relatively few combatants per map) that make the game mediocre.
It could certainly be improved via patches or DLC.
Six months ago, the game still included two multiplayer modes which have disappeared: Stronghold and Ring Bearer. The latter was like a game of Tag that involves Nazgul chasing Frodo for the One Ring. Stronghold was fashioned after the ingenius Galactic Conquest mode of Star Wars: Battlefront, which strings battles together into a continuous war (thereby making the battles more meaningful). Whereas I can imagine balance issues with the Ring Bearer mode, I can't imagine why Stronghold would be removed unless Pandemic plans to release it later on. Afterall, if you simply remove map bonuses as Galactic Conquest had, then there's no balance necessary -- simply provide a basic screen that shows players which territories they currently control, how the war is going.
In fact, the game seems to have been somewhat misrepresented over the past year. Watch this interview from August of last year. All of the scenes shown include more combatants than are in the final version of the game. The scenes with dozens of characters are merely showing non-interactive animations included in the maps. You will not fight massive battles at Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields. The massive groups of soldiers in the video are purely for show, though there are considerably more combatants and more spectacular events in the campaign mode.
It took me a while to figure out how to climb the oliphants to kill them. There's no RB prompt when behind them or by the trunk; you have to be on the outside of a front leg. As for "You get to push the massive siege towers" There are towers in the game, but I've only seen them moved by NPCs in the campaign mode.
One scene in that video is definitely true (about a minute in): note how long it takes for Aragorn to stand back up after he's knocked down by the orcs. Now, the interview was showing a work in progress, but I think you can see what I mean.
Anyway, I've updated my original statement to say the game is merely mediocre, not completely awful. I find myself still interested in playing it from time to time... but, in the words of Gamespot's Chris Watters, the game is "as exasperating as it is exhilarating".
Conquest is mediocre, bordering on bad (I originally said "it sucks", but that was probably overly harsh). Like Too Human, the concept had great potential, but the actuality falls very short. Some of that potential is lost to ridiculously obvious flaws, some to failure to go as far as its predecessors (Star Wars: Battlefront 1 & 2, by the same studio) went years ago.
The most obvious difference between LOTR: Conquest and the Star Wars: Battlefront games is that Conquest involves melee combat. That alone has a huge impact on gameplay, because it means half the classes are not nearly as dependent on aiming. That's not necessarily bad, but it led to some feature decisions which annoy me and every other player I've spoken with to no end. For one, you will often be knocked down and then attacked while you're helpless on the ground (getting back up isn't immediate). Melee also involves combos, and players seem to be just as helpless while being attacked by a combo chain... particularly while being attacked by multiple foes.
Helplessness is not a fun feeling in an action game, but it's rampant in LOTR: Conquest. Expect to spend a lot of time on the ground or unable to block or attack as your hacked to pieces by a warrior. This problem alone undermines the game's good elements almost entirely.
Expect to unpredictably fall off ledges and see your allies diving to their deaths. I usually play as a scout or archer. The scout is a lot of fun, but the animation for backstabbing both moves and turns the player's character. You can't backstab anyone near a ledge, because the animation's likely to take you right into the chasm. Sometimes you'll think you're far enough away, but you're not. I've also found my scout sliding into corners or enemies during the backstab animation, if my scout is on sloped ground. AI allies are constantly falling over edges as they charge into enemies or turn from a fight.
Whereas SW:B has five classes per faction and four factions, Conquest has only four per faction and two factions. Going with four classes isn't technically an omission, since Conquest is a separate IP, but you'll feel the absence of the former's variety. It's an exponential effect -- one class isn't just one experience; how it combines with each other class, playing as and against, is a separate experience.
SW: Battlefront also gave each faction unique classes -- flying jet troopers, wookiees, engineers with bolt blasters, rolling and shielded droidekas, pilots with mortar launchers, super battle droids, etc. Pandemic apparently chose "safe" over "interesting" this time around, and the game is weaker for it. That said, the four classes provided are fairly well-designed, but there are significant problems.
One of those problems is the mage's shield spell. I can accept that it makes the mage invulnerable from ranged attacks, considering that he can't attack while shielding. What I can't accept is how often mage shields blind everyone to what's going on around them, especially on particular maps like Pelennor Fields. When mages are shielding, archers are shooting poison and fire arrows, and scouts are tossing fire bombs all in the same area, good luck trying to tell who's an enemy and who's an ally when they're not right in your face.
Horses and wargs are not much fun, in my opinion. Expect to be knocked off quickly. Oliphants can be fun as lumbering giants until you try to turn more than slightly; how to do so is not intuitive, if manageable. Trolls and Ents are fun. You can be taken down quickly if someone sneaks up behind you and climbs up your back (a very simple quick-time event), so you have to remember to swing around frequently, but that's a well-deserved balance. It can sometimes be hard to see what you're fighting.
Don't expect any neutral characters, like the Tusken Raiders in SW:B, or monsters. But one great dynamic I have noticed is a lever to temporarily drop a bridge on the Moria map. It lets you drop the bridge from beneath enemy players if you time it right, though I haven't seen it used to that effect yet.
Some heroes are more fun than others, but all are disappointing. Most are basically regular classes with more damage. Sarumon feels like a hero; less so Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas. Sauron is ridiculously similar to Aragorn and other warriors, which completely saps the thrill of playing with him. The mode in which all players are heroes is fun, though it would be more so if there were AI soldier regulars alongside. With the limited number of characters in the battle, it's common for players to be singled out by everyone and ganged up on. Trolls, ents, the Balrog, and such are more fun. I found a sitting troll once or twice that I was able to press RB to become, but most trolls and ents seem to be uncontrollable.
The maps often feel too big for the number of combatants. The battles simply are not as intense as in SW:B 1 & 2. This might be due to the layout of the maps, but I think the problem is that Pandemic made the maps bigger than in previous games without also increasing the number of combatants. Are there even as many combatants? There are usually enemies around, but I see fewer crowds than in the old games. Of course, the maps being big doesn't prevent the game from occasionally respawning you right in the thick of battle, so you die before you realize what's going on.
More than a few times, I've died by running off the battefield. Star Wars: Battlefront made it clear where the battlefield ends. But knowing where it ends on a map like Pelennor Fields is not so clear. It's easy to charge your oliphant or warg headlong into an instant and needless death. You'll see combat off the battlefield that's purely animation. And if you're fighitng in the fields in front of Isengard, isn't it natural to think you can go right up to the city's gates, even if you can't enter? You'd eventually learn, of course. Anyway, why not just warp players back to a checkpoint, or forcibly turn the player?
This reviewer sums up the AI nicely: "I get it, the game was obviously built with multiplayer in mind, but seriously half the time it may as well be you versus every orc in Mordor." The AI seems meant only to tread water until the player completes his objectives. And it is common to press forward and find that nobody came with you. Just as importantly, single-player battles don't allow you to get lost in the thick of chaos, which was much of the thrill of previous battlefield games. Being the only major force in the battle makes it a very different kind of game (which isn't necessarily bad, but seems so in this case). In fact, the AI seems programmed to focus on the player whenever he or she is near. Run into a crowd, and all eyes turn toward you, regardless of how many allies are nearby. And NPCs like to jump off cliffs, as I mentioned before.
The graphics look better in screenshots than in actual gameplay. That's not due to framerate issues or any technical issue. It's a design issue. There might be a number of differences between its art and SW:B's, but ultimately Conquest isn't much prettier (if at all) than that game released back in 2004.
There's isn't much story, since this is an action game, but I do like actor Hugo Weaving's narrated introductions and commentary (Elrond). Since this is a game based on a popular literary and film IP, the use of such scenes to inspire the player makes good sense.
Right now, I feel much like many Metallica fans felt when the St. Anger album was released -- I'm stunned to get such garbage from a consistently good team. I consider Star Wars: Battlefront to be one of the greatest action games of all time. It was so dynamic, so well paced, so well balanced. This game makes me want to throw something at my TV. The potential was there... and now it's gone.
LOTR: Conquest will never be a great game now, but perhaps it could still be made into a good game. Here are some changes that could be made via a patch:
- Decrease the knockdown duration. Being unable to recover quickly from knockdowns, which happen all the time, is one of the main elements that's frustrating players.
- Improve the AI. They shouldn't charge into chasms. They shouldn't be obsessed with the player alone. And give us more AI characters per battle, if possible, including in multiplayer. The original Star Wars: Battlefront seemed to have more characters per battle.
- In single-player mode, allow the player to put hero opportunities on hold. If the player rejects the opportunity to play a hero, then allow the hero to be selected at any point in the battle thereafter, until used. I don't understand why it was made otherwise.
- When an opportunity to play as a hero is offered, don't limit the selection to one hero. Different players will prefer different heroes. You've already deviated from the LOTR lore by making mages ubiquitous, so that aspect shouldn't be a concern.
- Add more dynamics. If the game's sales justify an add-on, new classes would be best. Neutral NPCs are another possibility.
- For God's sake, make Sauron more like Sauron in the single-player campaign! Give the Witchking back his huge, slow flail. All the heroes should be less like regular soldiers. And make the Balrog and oliphants easier to turn.
<<<>>>
If you never played either of the Star Wars: Battlefront games, you'll probably be much more satisfied with the game than I am. Pandemic mysteriously failed to repeat many great elements of their past battlefield games, and it's hard for someone who played them to see Conquest with fresh eyes.
The game does have its moments. Seeing player-controlled ents and trolls go head-to-head is awesome. Interrupting would-be attackers with my warg in Capture the Ring mode is another memorable moment. Sneaking up to backstab someone or landing a nice headshot while zooming with the bow are a lot of fun. It's just the excessive frustration in between fun moments and certain lackluster elements (like relatively few combatants per map) that make the game mediocre.
It could certainly be improved via patches or DLC.
Six months ago, the game still included two multiplayer modes which have disappeared: Stronghold and Ring Bearer. The latter was like a game of Tag that involves Nazgul chasing Frodo for the One Ring. Stronghold was fashioned after the ingenius Galactic Conquest mode of Star Wars: Battlefront, which strings battles together into a continuous war (thereby making the battles more meaningful). Whereas I can imagine balance issues with the Ring Bearer mode, I can't imagine why Stronghold would be removed unless Pandemic plans to release it later on. Afterall, if you simply remove map bonuses as Galactic Conquest had, then there's no balance necessary -- simply provide a basic screen that shows players which territories they currently control, how the war is going.
In fact, the game seems to have been somewhat misrepresented over the past year. Watch this interview from August of last year. All of the scenes shown include more combatants than are in the final version of the game. The scenes with dozens of characters are merely showing non-interactive animations included in the maps. You will not fight massive battles at Helm's Deep or Pelennor Fields. The massive groups of soldiers in the video are purely for show, though there are considerably more combatants and more spectacular events in the campaign mode.
It took me a while to figure out how to climb the oliphants to kill them. There's no RB prompt when behind them or by the trunk; you have to be on the outside of a front leg. As for "You get to push the massive siege towers" There are towers in the game, but I've only seen them moved by NPCs in the campaign mode.
One scene in that video is definitely true (about a minute in): note how long it takes for Aragorn to stand back up after he's knocked down by the orcs. Now, the interview was showing a work in progress, but I think you can see what I mean.
Anyway, I've updated my original statement to say the game is merely mediocre, not completely awful. I find myself still interested in playing it from time to time... but, in the words of Gamespot's Chris Watters, the game is "as exasperating as it is exhilarating".
Friday, January 16, 2009
taking plot to the player
I was thinking about unclear goals and wandering in games. Like a lot of players, I enjoy just wandering and exploring. In a game like Fallout 3, I like to just head east and see what happens. True adventure always involves events which are unplanned and unexpected.
But if you wander too long, if you're always chasing minor goals and don't have one or more great conflicts to tie it all together, then the experiences start to feel shallow. The grand conflict frames the smaller events, reveals order and meaning.
Most games which offer content far beyond a scripted plot, like Fallout 3 or Saints Row 2, merely leave an invitation with the player to jump back on the narrative highway whenever fancy strikes. Either the player is forced into the game's narrative heart from time to time, or the player is given a map to find it whenever.
There is an alternative, though I don't pretend it would be easy. The alternative is for the main conflict to enter smaller conflicts in the form of overt events.
In The Godfather III, there's an important scene where Michael Corleone realizes he can't escape his past:
He walked away from conflict, and conflict hunted him down. He was able to have meaningful experiences apart from that old war, but eventually it always finds a way to interrupt or mix into those experiences.
Let players chase those smaller conflicts and experiences. And let them choose when to fully engage with the main conflict. But don't just leave a sign, post reminders, or tie everything to the plot through passive crossovers (side-quest choices which relate to the primary plot but cannot affect its progression). Occasionally bring the main conflict to wherever the player has wandered, with force and with consequences.
Remember, adventures isn't chosen. It's responded to.
But if you wander too long, if you're always chasing minor goals and don't have one or more great conflicts to tie it all together, then the experiences start to feel shallow. The grand conflict frames the smaller events, reveals order and meaning.
Most games which offer content far beyond a scripted plot, like Fallout 3 or Saints Row 2, merely leave an invitation with the player to jump back on the narrative highway whenever fancy strikes. Either the player is forced into the game's narrative heart from time to time, or the player is given a map to find it whenever.
There is an alternative, though I don't pretend it would be easy. The alternative is for the main conflict to enter smaller conflicts in the form of overt events.
In The Godfather III, there's an important scene where Michael Corleone realizes he can't escape his past:
He walked away from conflict, and conflict hunted him down. He was able to have meaningful experiences apart from that old war, but eventually it always finds a way to interrupt or mix into those experiences.
Let players chase those smaller conflicts and experiences. And let them choose when to fully engage with the main conflict. But don't just leave a sign, post reminders, or tie everything to the plot through passive crossovers (side-quest choices which relate to the primary plot but cannot affect its progression). Occasionally bring the main conflict to wherever the player has wandered, with force and with consequences.
Remember, adventures isn't chosen. It's responded to.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
when two make one
I remember being fascinated when it was first pointed out to me that "fist" is both a noun and a verb. A fist is a hand clenching. Likewise, you can sometimes put two or more objects together and they become one object, even if they are still acting independently.
I thought about this as I was playing Fallout 3 the other day and saw a small herd of cattle roaming down a street. Until that moment, I had played the game for over 40 hours and had never seen a cow grouped with another. Merely by grouping four or five together on a casual journey through a ruined city, Bethesda's developers created a new and memorable experience for me.
The point is that developers don't always have to create new visual assets or even tweak existing assets to produce new content. Sometimes all you have to do is arrange old content in a new and meaningful way.
I thought about this as I was playing Fallout 3 the other day and saw a small herd of cattle roaming down a street. Until that moment, I had played the game for over 40 hours and had never seen a cow grouped with another. Merely by grouping four or five together on a casual journey through a ruined city, Bethesda's developers created a new and memorable experience for me.
The point is that developers don't always have to create new visual assets or even tweak existing assets to produce new content. Sometimes all you have to do is arrange old content in a new and meaningful way.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
thoughts on Fallout 3
If I ever give Fallout 3 a full, structured review, it will probably be many months from now. It's a big game and there are too many others to play, too many other things to do. But here are some random impressions.
I've been focusing on exploration and side quests. I've only recently blown up the town of Megaton and haven't yet been to downtown DC.
First off, this is not a game for quick and casual consumption. Sure, you might boot it up every once in a while just to make someone's head explode like a watermelon, but the game really shines after you've played it a long while. In fact, I'd say odds are that the more you play it, the more you'll enjoy it. That's how it's been with me. When I first got the game, I wasn't very excited by it. Now, after what probably amounts to somewhere over 40 hours of play, I can't wait to continue my game.
And I can't wait to start new characters! The perk system is really impressive. Every time you level up, you choose another perk. And the order in which you choose perks has almost as great an effect on your game experience as which perks you choose.
For example, I only started applying skill points and perks for Science at level 16, so I've only been able to a few of the many computer terminals I've run across. I also put off the Sandman perk until now, which lets me kill NPCs in their sleep for great xp. On the other hand, I've devoted many skill points and perks to Small Guns (conventional weapons -- rifle, handgun, uzi, shotgun, etc), so combat has gone much smoother than it probably would have otherwise. Early on, I chose a perk which lets me scavenge more ammo than usual, making ammo less of a factor in gameplay.
My character also has low charisma and no perks for Speech or Barter. Only rarely have I been given a special speech option during dialog. The next character I'm going to try will focus on charisma and unarmed combat. In a world full of people with guns, that should be interesting.
The game seems to have a ton of replayability. Playing through familiar quests is never as fun as the first time, but many quests in Fallout 3 have consequences for dialog choices that go far beyond NPCs merely liking you or disliking you, positive and negative reactions. For example, I stole money from a vendor's safe yesterday, as I had stolen from countless other vendors. None of the others said a word about it. This one not only complained about the theft, but closed up shop and left the settlement! It was only after I had stolen from her that I realized she would leave and that she's the only vendor who sells room decorations for my apartment. Players must also choose whether or not to blow up Megaton, whether or not to help the ghouls (people distorted by radiation), whether to help the slaves or the slavers... and also more subtle decisions like which vendors to aid, who to believe, and how blunt or polite to be in conversations.
The need to repair weapons seems more annoying than immersive. The limited ammo encourages players to explore different weapons, so repair isn't needed for that aim. I had a good amount of strength and have always carried many weapons, so perhaps repair matters more when you carry only a few. But I'm not convinced the Repair skill improves gameplay significantly. That said, it's not a big deal.
I run across bugs from time to time. Bugs are to be expected in PC games, since PCs vary so much from person to person, but they're a bigger problem in console games. I play the game on the 360. My Sneak status occasionally gets stuck as "Caution" (meaning someone's aware I'm around and is searching for me) when nothing is near. The more common, and more annoying, bug is a graphical glitch that stretches a surface or pixel across the screen when I turn. Oblivion has a similarly huge world and has never given me that problem. In fact, no other 360 game has.
Some of the voice-acting is superb, but most of it is mediocre or worse. For a game with so much dialogue, this is a big problem. After playing Oblivion, I quickly learned to ignore it.
The world design is impressive. The bleak landscape wears thin after a while. The limited color palette fits the setting, but it certainly hurts the replayability and freshness of each play-session. The Alaska DLC will be a very welcome addition. Still, the gameworld feels carefully crafted and arranged. If I could take screenshots on my 360 version, I would be doing it all the time. I've been using my map a lot this time through, but it would probably be more immersive to just use the compass and landmarks. Despite the many broken bridges, destroyed homes and such, I rarely confuse one place with another. The variety of creatures seems small for so large a world, but they are well-designed.
Overall, I'm loving Fallout 3. I didn't in the beginning, but it's steadily growing on me.
I've been focusing on exploration and side quests. I've only recently blown up the town of Megaton and haven't yet been to downtown DC.
First off, this is not a game for quick and casual consumption. Sure, you might boot it up every once in a while just to make someone's head explode like a watermelon, but the game really shines after you've played it a long while. In fact, I'd say odds are that the more you play it, the more you'll enjoy it. That's how it's been with me. When I first got the game, I wasn't very excited by it. Now, after what probably amounts to somewhere over 40 hours of play, I can't wait to continue my game.
And I can't wait to start new characters! The perk system is really impressive. Every time you level up, you choose another perk. And the order in which you choose perks has almost as great an effect on your game experience as which perks you choose.
For example, I only started applying skill points and perks for Science at level 16, so I've only been able to a few of the many computer terminals I've run across. I also put off the Sandman perk until now, which lets me kill NPCs in their sleep for great xp. On the other hand, I've devoted many skill points and perks to Small Guns (conventional weapons -- rifle, handgun, uzi, shotgun, etc), so combat has gone much smoother than it probably would have otherwise. Early on, I chose a perk which lets me scavenge more ammo than usual, making ammo less of a factor in gameplay.
My character also has low charisma and no perks for Speech or Barter. Only rarely have I been given a special speech option during dialog. The next character I'm going to try will focus on charisma and unarmed combat. In a world full of people with guns, that should be interesting.
The game seems to have a ton of replayability. Playing through familiar quests is never as fun as the first time, but many quests in Fallout 3 have consequences for dialog choices that go far beyond NPCs merely liking you or disliking you, positive and negative reactions. For example, I stole money from a vendor's safe yesterday, as I had stolen from countless other vendors. None of the others said a word about it. This one not only complained about the theft, but closed up shop and left the settlement! It was only after I had stolen from her that I realized she would leave and that she's the only vendor who sells room decorations for my apartment. Players must also choose whether or not to blow up Megaton, whether or not to help the ghouls (people distorted by radiation), whether to help the slaves or the slavers... and also more subtle decisions like which vendors to aid, who to believe, and how blunt or polite to be in conversations.
The need to repair weapons seems more annoying than immersive. The limited ammo encourages players to explore different weapons, so repair isn't needed for that aim. I had a good amount of strength and have always carried many weapons, so perhaps repair matters more when you carry only a few. But I'm not convinced the Repair skill improves gameplay significantly. That said, it's not a big deal.
I run across bugs from time to time. Bugs are to be expected in PC games, since PCs vary so much from person to person, but they're a bigger problem in console games. I play the game on the 360. My Sneak status occasionally gets stuck as "Caution" (meaning someone's aware I'm around and is searching for me) when nothing is near. The more common, and more annoying, bug is a graphical glitch that stretches a surface or pixel across the screen when I turn. Oblivion has a similarly huge world and has never given me that problem. In fact, no other 360 game has.
Some of the voice-acting is superb, but most of it is mediocre or worse. For a game with so much dialogue, this is a big problem. After playing Oblivion, I quickly learned to ignore it.
The world design is impressive. The bleak landscape wears thin after a while. The limited color palette fits the setting, but it certainly hurts the replayability and freshness of each play-session. The Alaska DLC will be a very welcome addition. Still, the gameworld feels carefully crafted and arranged. If I could take screenshots on my 360 version, I would be doing it all the time. I've been using my map a lot this time through, but it would probably be more immersive to just use the compass and landmarks. Despite the many broken bridges, destroyed homes and such, I rarely confuse one place with another. The variety of creatures seems small for so large a world, but they are well-designed.
Overall, I'm loving Fallout 3. I didn't in the beginning, but it's steadily growing on me.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Netflix update
I rejoined Netflix late last week, and their partnership with Microsoft is definitely a much better deal than I expected.
As I said before, my trial of Netflix last August left me with low expectations for the online service that would reach Xbox Live. Little of the streamable content was worthwhile, most of it being decades-old B movies or worse. Since then, Netflix has signed a deal with Starz, which adds plenty of films that are actually good and well-produced: Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men, Enchanted, etc.
They also seem to have made more TV series available for streaming. Some, like NewsRadio (Phil Hartman is hilarious!) and The A-Team, are available on Hulu for free. But now Netflix also has many seasons of Law & Order, CSI, Dead Like Me, and other popular shows.
I watched many movies and TV episodes over the weekend and had no problems with stream quality. Keep in mind, though, that I have an old CRT television and cable-quality internet. If you have an HD-TV or slow/choppy connection, I suppose your stream quality could be worse. Regardless of how often the current streaming strategy works, it seems nonsensical that users are not allowed to forego live streaming and instead choose heavy buffering for better resolution.
It's also disappointing that so many triple-A films which can be purchased for download elsewhere (i.e., are already available in a disc-less format) are not available for streaming, but I can only assume that's due to the film publishers.
But the benefits outweigh the shortcomings. I now have over a hundred films and TV shows in my queu. All of them are on-demand content with DVD-like controls and no commercial interruptions. As long as I'm a member of Netflix, I can take all of that content with me when I travel. It's a sweet deal.
As I said before, my trial of Netflix last August left me with low expectations for the online service that would reach Xbox Live. Little of the streamable content was worthwhile, most of it being decades-old B movies or worse. Since then, Netflix has signed a deal with Starz, which adds plenty of films that are actually good and well-produced: Goodfellas, No Country for Old Men, Enchanted, etc.
They also seem to have made more TV series available for streaming. Some, like NewsRadio (Phil Hartman is hilarious!) and The A-Team, are available on Hulu for free. But now Netflix also has many seasons of Law & Order, CSI, Dead Like Me, and other popular shows.
I watched many movies and TV episodes over the weekend and had no problems with stream quality. Keep in mind, though, that I have an old CRT television and cable-quality internet. If you have an HD-TV or slow/choppy connection, I suppose your stream quality could be worse. Regardless of how often the current streaming strategy works, it seems nonsensical that users are not allowed to forego live streaming and instead choose heavy buffering for better resolution.
It's also disappointing that so many triple-A films which can be purchased for download elsewhere (i.e., are already available in a disc-less format) are not available for streaming, but I can only assume that's due to the film publishers.
But the benefits outweigh the shortcomings. I now have over a hundred films and TV shows in my queu. All of them are on-demand content with DVD-like controls and no commercial interruptions. As long as I'm a member of Netflix, I can take all of that content with me when I travel. It's a sweet deal.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
3-D gaming
It will probably be a long time before 3-D gaming becomes mainstream. I doubt that news to you, because this new wave of 3-D tech and research is only beginning.
Every major Hollywood film publisher has at least one or two 3-D films in the works, and some reputable studios (like Spielberg's Dreamworks) have even spoke of making nothing but 3-D films soon. As Andrew Oliver at Blitz Games pointed out, it seems logical for game adaptations of 3-D films to also be 3-D. While such games might not be the next big thing, they are definitely coming.
Modern 3-D technology is far superior to the old tech. So it's unsurprising that a lot of people I've spoken to about it over the past couple years are not really excited about this movement among Hollywood directors. It's a technology that can be used poorly to make shoddy work, a tech that requires wisdom and imagination, so there are doubtlessly bad 3-D movies on the horizon. Some great directors believe all films will be 3-D eventually, but I think that's very debatable at this point.
Games. Yes, I know. I'm getting there slowly.
How many of you have been to an IMAX theater? I've been to several IMAX movies. They're impressive, but many people have trouble viewing them. IMAX presentations begin with a warning about nausea and point out the theater exits. People who are prone to motion sickness are especially vulnerable, but even people with stronger dispositions have trouble looking down into a canyon with startling scope and clarity.
So, finally, the point. The same problems will arise with 3-D games. The experience will be too intense for many gamers. Poor use of the technology by some will make 3-D a hard sell for better designers. But even when it's used masterfully, there will be questions of health, not to mention a whole new wave of concerns about interactive violence and mature content.
Anyway. What experiences have you had with 3-D technology? Did you enjoy it? Do the glasses bother you? Do you get disoriented? I'm looking forward to the 3-D shift, but I expect it will be many years before it hits television broadcasting or TV sales, despite Hollywood's apparent interests.
Every major Hollywood film publisher has at least one or two 3-D films in the works, and some reputable studios (like Spielberg's Dreamworks) have even spoke of making nothing but 3-D films soon. As Andrew Oliver at Blitz Games pointed out, it seems logical for game adaptations of 3-D films to also be 3-D. While such games might not be the next big thing, they are definitely coming.
Modern 3-D technology is far superior to the old tech. So it's unsurprising that a lot of people I've spoken to about it over the past couple years are not really excited about this movement among Hollywood directors. It's a technology that can be used poorly to make shoddy work, a tech that requires wisdom and imagination, so there are doubtlessly bad 3-D movies on the horizon. Some great directors believe all films will be 3-D eventually, but I think that's very debatable at this point.
Games. Yes, I know. I'm getting there slowly.
How many of you have been to an IMAX theater? I've been to several IMAX movies. They're impressive, but many people have trouble viewing them. IMAX presentations begin with a warning about nausea and point out the theater exits. People who are prone to motion sickness are especially vulnerable, but even people with stronger dispositions have trouble looking down into a canyon with startling scope and clarity.
So, finally, the point. The same problems will arise with 3-D games. The experience will be too intense for many gamers. Poor use of the technology by some will make 3-D a hard sell for better designers. But even when it's used masterfully, there will be questions of health, not to mention a whole new wave of concerns about interactive violence and mature content.
Anyway. What experiences have you had with 3-D technology? Did you enjoy it? Do the glasses bother you? Do you get disoriented? I'm looking forward to the 3-D shift, but I expect it will be many years before it hits television broadcasting or TV sales, despite Hollywood's apparent interests.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
WWII in America
It's been a while since I tossed out a game idea. Here's one I came up with a few weeks ago.
My grandma worked for the Corp of Engineers in Mobile back during WWII, so she was one of the few people who knew at the time that German U-boats were in the Gulf of Mexico. One was even spotted in Mobile Bay! She had to keep that info to herself.
The fact that the Germans had attack ships along our shores, were sinking our merchant ships, and that we had mandatory blackouts all along the Gulf Coast is an almost forgotten piece of history. I had no idea the war had come so close to home until I read Torpedoes in the Gulf for a college history class. Few people of my generation seem to know much about it.
Anyway, the game idea is a "what if' scenario. What if U-boats were secretly landing on the American Gulf Coast during early WWII?
The tale could be told from the perspective of a Cajun in the rural Louisiana swampland. He notices the Germans landing in his area and sneaking through. The man (player's character) decides to take matters into his own hands and uses his knowledge of the area to find, track, and capture or kill the Germans.
There's no better environment for a mysterious, edgy game than Southern swampland -- an environment which hasn't been seen much, if at all, in games. Something can get right up next to you in the swamp water without you realizing it. And the adventure could pass through other charismatic and potentially unsettling areas, like the wards of New Orleans, the Mobile docks, and the Everglades. Victorian architecture, aristocratic politics, extravagant hospitality, colorful language... the Deep South has a lot of flavor to make it a unique and attractive setting.
The game's swamps and bayous would be dangerous and dynamic. Cajuns are hunters, and a hunting rifle and shotgun are the perfect weapons to start the player with. The protagonist would start out hunting soldiers and avoiding local wildlife Turok-style -- gators, panthers, bobcats, etc. He would also be warning locals, enlisting aid, and gaining motivation through tragic interactions. Later, he would be tracking spies through the cities. Much of the South was populated by Germans, so it wouldn't be hard for German spies to mimick a Southern dialect and infiltrate our bureacracies. The game might even allow the players to kill or capture the wrong people, and suffer the consequences.
Anyway, the South is a great setting for a game that I don't recall ever being used. I would only ask that the designers enlist real Southerners for the voice-overs, so we wouldn't have to endure the terrible impressions Hollywood likes to use. And WWII could feel fresh if the setting was here in the States and the player wasn't playing as a conventional soldier.
My grandma worked for the Corp of Engineers in Mobile back during WWII, so she was one of the few people who knew at the time that German U-boats were in the Gulf of Mexico. One was even spotted in Mobile Bay! She had to keep that info to herself.
The fact that the Germans had attack ships along our shores, were sinking our merchant ships, and that we had mandatory blackouts all along the Gulf Coast is an almost forgotten piece of history. I had no idea the war had come so close to home until I read Torpedoes in the Gulf for a college history class. Few people of my generation seem to know much about it.
Anyway, the game idea is a "what if' scenario. What if U-boats were secretly landing on the American Gulf Coast during early WWII?
The tale could be told from the perspective of a Cajun in the rural Louisiana swampland. He notices the Germans landing in his area and sneaking through. The man (player's character) decides to take matters into his own hands and uses his knowledge of the area to find, track, and capture or kill the Germans.
There's no better environment for a mysterious, edgy game than Southern swampland -- an environment which hasn't been seen much, if at all, in games. Something can get right up next to you in the swamp water without you realizing it. And the adventure could pass through other charismatic and potentially unsettling areas, like the wards of New Orleans, the Mobile docks, and the Everglades. Victorian architecture, aristocratic politics, extravagant hospitality, colorful language... the Deep South has a lot of flavor to make it a unique and attractive setting.
The game's swamps and bayous would be dangerous and dynamic. Cajuns are hunters, and a hunting rifle and shotgun are the perfect weapons to start the player with. The protagonist would start out hunting soldiers and avoiding local wildlife Turok-style -- gators, panthers, bobcats, etc. He would also be warning locals, enlisting aid, and gaining motivation through tragic interactions. Later, he would be tracking spies through the cities. Much of the South was populated by Germans, so it wouldn't be hard for German spies to mimick a Southern dialect and infiltrate our bureacracies. The game might even allow the players to kill or capture the wrong people, and suffer the consequences.
Anyway, the South is a great setting for a game that I don't recall ever being used. I would only ask that the designers enlist real Southerners for the voice-overs, so we wouldn't have to endure the terrible impressions Hollywood likes to use. And WWII could feel fresh if the setting was here in the States and the player wasn't playing as a conventional soldier.
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Netflix-360 better than expected?
Frankly, I'm surprised how many people have said over the past month or two that they love Netflix on the 360. In theory, it always looked like a sweet deal. But my PC experience with Netflix streaming left much to be desired in terms of movie and show selection.
It's possible Netflix made improvements to their selection in anticipation of the 360 deal. TGD says they have 30 Rock on there, and I don't recall any recent shows like that being available for streaming when I was a member.
Color me skeptical, but I'm going to give Netflix another try. How has it worked for you?
It's possible Netflix made improvements to their selection in anticipation of the 360 deal. TGD says they have 30 Rock on there, and I don't recall any recent shows like that being available for streaming when I was a member.
Color me skeptical, but I'm going to give Netflix another try. How has it worked for you?
Friday, January 02, 2009
new appreciation
I'm still recovering from the holidays, and still have family visiting... and there's SEC teams playing bowl games today, so I don't have much to say today. But here are some short thoughts.
I was given Guitar Hero: World Tour for Christmas, with just the guitar and another. It's my first music game, ironically enough, and I'm loving it. After some nagging from my visiting sisters, I bought Rock Band 2 as well so I could have drums and a mic. Rock Band seems to have a hell of a lot more DLC, and great stuff ("Electric Crown" by Testament, "Dr. Feelgood" by Motley Crue, old Metallica, etc), but so far (it's still early) World Tour feels better and is more challenging. I'm loving both.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with World Tour's recording studio. As a songwriter for over 15 years, I'm hoping to create all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure how versatile or effective it is yet.
These music games have me enjoying songs in a whole new way. I wonder how games can help us to appreciate other things, like literature, in new ways. The main barrier to good translation of literature is still dialogue, for which AI remains insufficient. But perhaps designers can compensate elsewhere.
There's a LOTR: Conquest multiplayer demo on XBL today! It will be a while before I can try it out, but I recommend it to anyone. It's fashioned after Star Wars: Battlefront, and I consider that one of the best games of all-time; so much replayability and so much variety. I look forward to stomping on you all with my oliphant.
I was given Guitar Hero: World Tour for Christmas, with just the guitar and another. It's my first music game, ironically enough, and I'm loving it. After some nagging from my visiting sisters, I bought Rock Band 2 as well so I could have drums and a mic. Rock Band seems to have a hell of a lot more DLC, and great stuff ("Electric Crown" by Testament, "Dr. Feelgood" by Motley Crue, old Metallica, etc), but so far (it's still early) World Tour feels better and is more challenging. I'm loving both.
I'm looking forward to experimenting with World Tour's recording studio. As a songwriter for over 15 years, I'm hoping to create all sorts of stuff. I'm not sure how versatile or effective it is yet.
These music games have me enjoying songs in a whole new way. I wonder how games can help us to appreciate other things, like literature, in new ways. The main barrier to good translation of literature is still dialogue, for which AI remains insufficient. But perhaps designers can compensate elsewhere.
There's a LOTR: Conquest multiplayer demo on XBL today! It will be a while before I can try it out, but I recommend it to anyone. It's fashioned after Star Wars: Battlefront, and I consider that one of the best games of all-time; so much replayability and so much variety. I look forward to stomping on you all with my oliphant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
