war, off the battlefields

I've always wanted to play a game about war away from the battlefield.

If you watch a lot of movies and documentaries, you start to associate war only with soldiers and epic battles. But what's war like for civilians? What's it like for the small groups of soldiers in between and separated from major battles? There's a little of this in films like The Longest Day and The Scarlet and The Black.



Well, it looks like Pandemic's open world game The Saboteur might offer me a taste of that experience. From this Unscripted 360 interview with Lead Designer Tom French (I can't believe nobody has mentioned the irony of that name): "you can drive straight out of the city limits [of Paris], into a sweeping French countryside, on to neighboring French chateaus to other towns and even across the border into Germany".

This isn't a game about a soldier charging into enemy emplacements with helmet and orders. This is a game about an Irish racecar mechanic with a grudge against Nazis, ala Indiana Jones, stuck in occupied France. And it's even inspired by a true story.



I'll be most interested to see how the "Will to Fight" feature works and how the lives of the oppressed Parisians is portrayed. In any case, wandering around a war-torn country without being a formal part of that war should be fresh and exciting. I'll see if I can interview someone form Pandemic sometime to learn more about The Saboteur.


edit:
Another upcoming game, Velvet Assassin, developed by Replay, has a surprisingly similar setting. Also inspired by a true story (Violette Szabo), it's about a civilian in Nazi-occupied France killing Nazis. It seems to be a more linear game focusing on stealth kills and a dark, gritty atmosphere. IGN has some info on it here.

what RPGs could learn from CoD4

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

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

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

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

AI companions suck

While I love AI as competitors, I don't like AI as allies. Pathfinding, accuracy and such are common issues... but that's not why I hate AI companions.

I generally prefer not to have an AI companion, regardless of implementation, because the AI acts independently of my playstyle and impulsive decisions... thereby interfering.

For example, I might want to be stealthy, snapping necks or sniping from afar. The oblivious AI draws the enemies attention by not hiding, even going in guns blazing.

To a degree, this is avoidable. But the amount of planning and coding (and trial-and-error) required for an AI companion to regularly recognize and adapt to the many possible player behaviors is daunting. And in most action games, all it takes is a moment's hesitation for a companion to disrupt the player's gameplay.

For example, say the player is moving forward when an enemy suddenly comes from around a structure and into view. The player immediately falls prone to avoid detection, but the AI must wait for the player to act to know if he will go prone or charge and shoot. That moment's hesitation gets them spotted and now the player is forced to engage. I'm sure you can imagine any number of similar scenarios where a second's hesitation is a second too long.


Of course, there is some hope. Neverwinter Nights let players choose basic AI behavior, in the vein of "Stay [x] far from me" or "Use your [ranged/melee] weapon". I'm surprised that sort of feature hasn't been included in many other games... particularly FPS games.

It's common in squad-based games for the player to be able to give direct orders like "Go there" or "Focus on that target". Being able to adapt an NPC companion's general style and/or gear would be nice. Yes, being able to select from different companions allows this to a degree. But that's painting in broad strokes. We can do better.

a better hunting game

Real hunting involves a lot of patience, unless you're on a game ranch. Hunting video games are apparently popular enough that they keep getting made, but I've never known anyone who has owned one (and I live in Texas). Such games aren't mainstream because they focus on realism while ignoring the simple fact that simulation lacks most of the same thrills (smells, buddies, physical exertion, rewards like meat and skins, etc).

So how would I make a more enjoyable hunting game?


SETTING

Well, first, I'd make the setting a combination of real world and fantasy. By fantasy, I don't mean dragons and elves. The fantasy slant is important for many reasons.

For one, most animals larger than a housecat are well known these days. I would want to recreate the feeling of encountering new creatures... having no previous knowledge of their behaviors, speed, agility, defenses, or potential danger.

Monsters aren't real, right? Well, they used to be. The difference between an animal and a monster is only that a monster is mysterious and dangerous. Cameras, communication technologies, improved transportation, and other things have eliminated the most basic mysteries of wildlife. The invention of firearms, automobiles, electricity, and such have eliminted the danger for most people.

Which brings me to my next reason: being able to hunt animals which are now rare and legally guarded or recently extinct. I never heard a complaint about killing elephants in Everquest 2. In a fictional setting, some rules of reality don't apply. In my game, there would be no limits on what you can hunt or how many. It might include recently extinct animals like Australia's moa or Irish elk.

The third reason for setting the game in fiction is include the benefits of some modern technologies while removing the comforts of others, and even introduce some new ones. In my game, the player would be both predator and prey. Players would experience what it's like to be part of the food chain.


STORY

Unlike a typical hunting game, I would give this a game a storyline. Most of it would be emergent, but a backbone would be provided.

I'd probably start the player out on a recreational hunting trip or something similar.... something to hearken to the typical modern view of hunting. At this point, the player would be secure at the top of the food chain and have time to learn. Gameplay might not be limited to shooting either. If you've never seen the movie Hatari!, with John Wayne as part of a group that captures African animals for zoos, I strongly recommend it. That sort of non-lethal "hunting" is a possible side avenue for the game.

Then events would occur, perhaps gradually, to separate the player from that safety and ease.

The heart of the story would be when a dynamically-selected group of beasts, such as a pack of lions, begins stalking the player (ala The Edge) or burdening the player in some other way (ala The Ghost and The Darkness) -- both great films, by the way.

The main problem is what to do after that. In any case, a feeling of film-like adventure is one of the things lacking from past hunting games that has kept them from being widely popular. Providing this sense of story wouldn't be grounded in dialogue or text, but in play systems. That said, some narration or NPC commentary might be good.

When the player's adventure is done, if it ever is, the credits would roll in front of screenshots of the player's most memorable moments. Perhaps the player would take these pictures.


AI

I'm a big fan of systems like the one in Turok, in which AI compete with each other and not just the player. I would have a food web, but also give individual creatures need priorities. That way, the player would see things like a cheetah hunting an antelope, but a starving predator would attack something outside its usual prey menu. Dynamic behavior.

AI would also create other familiar scenarios, such as the normally passive animal becoming aggressive when injured or trapped.


Well, I'm going to stop there so I can get a post up before it's too late in the day. What are your thoughts on this or hunting games in general?

OnLive predictions

It's way too early to comment specifically on OnLive. But what it represents is of great interest and concern to everyone. I hear "cloud" gaming is a popular topic of discussions at the GDC. Here are a few predictions of my own.

First, I doubt this heralds the end of consoles. It's possible, but I'd be surprised if consoles ever disappeared. It doesn't matter if nearly all the games are the same. It doesn't matter if they share essential hardware and software features. Competition can flourish on things such as brand loyalty, familiarity, aesthetics, and ease of use. Look at automobile competition. Look at the PC-vs-Mac.

Second, OnLive sounds good for PC gamers. The greatest barrier to consumers interested in PC games has always been compatibility issues. And the costliest issues for PC game developers are compatibility and (arguably) piracy. If OnLive works as they say it will, those problems are eliminated.

Third, this isn't the end of traditional PC gaming. Modding has become increasingly popular over the years, and a person can't modify a game unless he has access to the code. Also, many consumers will want hard copies of games so that they don't have to worry about a service changing, provider-publisher contracts, internet access interruptions, etc.

What do you think? Where is cloud gaming leading us?

AI support strategic gameplay

I've decided to let yesterday's question sit for a day, so there's more time for feedback. In the meantime, I'm going to revisit an old subject: how AI competitors can augment human competition.

AI can be more conducive to player strategy than player opponents. Strategy is only possible to the extent that things can be predicted. If you can't foresee something, then you can't plan for it. Of course, sometimes predictability includes the lack thereof (you expect that something unexpected will occur, though you don't know exactly what).

Playing against a particular "personality" many times allows the player to gradually adapt, to develop a strategy over the course of multiple play-sessions. In multiplayer, human personalities are often unstable... meaning that players have fluid styles (due to mood, learning, or battle scenarios), they make impulsive decisions, etc. There's also frequent personality turnover, meaning that you're constantly playing new competitors and there are long intermissions between battles against any one competitor.

AI in the form of "multiplayer" bots serve two main functions. First, they prepare players for facing particular strategies and scenarios. There's wide discrepancy between how much time different players need for this. Second, they can offer a fun alternative to unpredictable nature of human beings. Even players who enjoy the challenge and dynamics of human competition sometimes want a change of pace, a different experience. AI can act as a nice balance and prevent players from burning out.

There are other potential uses, but I just wanted to emphasize the value of AI for supporting strategic gameplay. Don't think of bots as an alternative to players. Interaction with bots can aid interaction between players.

And don't think that AI in a single-player campaign acts in the same way.

TV spectating: the question

The Sci-Fi channel has apparently taken the leap into game spectating. From what I've read, though, their WCG Ultimate Gamer show is as much reality TV as spectating. I don't like that idea, but it raises the question of what sort of show could make game battles popular on TV.

What elements make for compelling game spectatorship?

As I try to answer that question, it would help if we could identify games which already appeal to spectators. What games have you played that your fellow gamers and even non-gamers have enjoyed watching you play?

The most obvious example in my own experience is LOTR: Battle for Middle Earth 2. Non-gamers young and old have hovered over me, fascinated, as I play that game. A semi-gamer cousin remarked, "I could watch you play that all day".

Mario Kart is another one. In that case, it's as much the social atmosphere that it encourages as the game itself.

The more games we can identify that appeal to spectators, the easier it will be for me to identify traits that make those fun to watch. What do you think?

Godfather 2 interview: cut, cars, and crew

Once again, I made EA Associate Producer Wes Culver an offer he couldn't refuse, and he was willing to share a bit more about The Godfather II. The game's due out April 7th in North America and April 10th in Europe.

As I said last time, I enjoyed the first Godfather game and the sequel seems to have a lot more dynamics, among other improvements. So I'm hopeful.


What RPG elements are at play in The Godfather II? What room exists for replayability in terms of character developmment?

There are a good number of elements in The Godfather II where you can upgrade your character and family. Traditional RPG elements include the ability to upgrade attributes for you as well as all of the Made Men in your family. Example attributes include the rate at which your health regenerates, your weapon accuracy level, your extortion effectiveness, and Black Hand skills, among others. Additionally, you will be able to find new weapons out in the game world that you’ll be able to wield. Depending on the type of weapon license your made men start out with (as they vary), they may be able to wield upgraded guns as well. Don’t worry if they don’t have an advanced weapon license, because you can always upgrade it by taking your made men in online multiplayer.

In addition to being able to upgrade attributes and skills, you’ll also be able to earn extra-special bonuses by taking over Crime Rings. Such bonuses include incendiary rounds, armored cars, bullet-proof vests, and more. Less traditional RPG elements include being able to build up your family as the Don. You choose which made men (and their associated specialties) you want to recruit. You decide who gets promoted and who doesn’t make the cut. You can even customize the appearance of yourself and your made men.

In regards to replayability, that’s mostly up to each individual. Since there are so many different ways of playing GF2, it is extremely rewarding to go back and play it again using a completely different strategy that yields different results. For example, you can go back and decide you want to take out all of the rival made men for each family. While taking out rival made men can be very challenging, it’s also very rewarding because it has a big impact on the strength of the family. Conversely, you can choose to go in guns blazing while trying to eliminate a rival family with all of their made men intact. It’ll be much more difficult, but possible. Being an open world game, each person can create their own fiction and unique experience in the Godfather universe.

Is combat entirely real-time? What's the balance between FPS aiming and character skills?

It depends… Combat between you, the Don, and your enemies is real time. As is any combat you personally engage in as the main character of GF2. However, being the Don carries certain perks, such as being able to order your made men to perform remote attacks on businesses while you’re doing something else. You can also send them to defend a business that’s either vulnerable or under attack.

Your character skills have a very big impact on your aiming. There are three different weapon accuracy attributes (for different types of weapons) as well as varying levels of each attribute. Add the “Marksman” ability on top of that, and the difference between when you start out and being fully upgraded is huge.

Has extorting businesses changed much since the first Godfather game?

The core of the extortion experienced has remained faithful to the original Godfather game, since it was one of our most highly rated features from the first game. We did, however, build on top of and around that core extortion experience. A great example of this is using your crew to gain access to side, rear, and other entrances in order to get the drop on enemies. You can have your engineer specialist cut through fences or cut the power so your rivals cannot call for extra backup. Your demolitions expert can blow open side entrances or have your bruiser break down walls. In addition to this, the concept that every racket belongs to a Crime Ring gives you a greater purpose for planning and attacking. Instead of just going after the closest business, you can choose to attack ones based on other factors, such as breaking up a Crime Ring or getting your own.

Will we see more vehicles in this Godfather game? Has driving gameplay been modified at all?

There are significantly more (I believe nearly 2x) vehicles in The Godfather II, compared to the original. There is also a greater amount of variety between the cars as well, including cars based off of 1960’s era muscle cars, sports cars, sedans, pickups, etc. In regards to the driving gameplay, the cars drive much faster than the first game so the way they feel matches their updated look.


Can you tell us more about the Online Honors in multiplayer?

Honors are the rewards you earn while playing online multiplayer. There are about a dozen different honors that each player can earn and you may even be able to earn multiple honors in a single match. Examples honors include being the top scorer on the winning team, healing your teammates 5 times, etc. Earning honors goes towards upgrading the weapon licenses of your made men each time you take them online.

What's your favorite weapon? Favorite skill? Favorite crew member?

It’s so difficult to choose a favorite weapon, since I use all of them depending on the situation. If I’m forced to pick, I’d have to say my favorite weapon is the Level 3 Magnum because it’s powerful in short and long range situations. My favorite skill for myself is the marksman ability, since I like to go for headshots when battling with a rival family. Favorite skill for my crew is upgrading their proficiency in any given specialty, which greatly reduces the time it takes to crack a safe, cut a fence, revive me, etc. My favorite crew member is Tommy Cipolla, the unique made man you get by pre-ordering the game (everyone’s got their pre-order in, right? :) because he starts with two specialties, an upgraded weapon license, and an upgraded gun by default.

So there you have it. You have a couple weeks to practice your worst Italian accent and polish your Gatling gun. Culver's team has put the game's brief delay since last month to good use and created yet another multiplayer mode, so you'd better be ready for my crew to burn down your casino!

Thanks again to EA and Wes Culver for the interview. If you missed my first interview with Culver, concerning The Don's View, you can find that here.

localizing non-verbal language

Lots of companies localize their games these days. How good these localizations are I don't know.

Over the years, I've read about occasional quality problems in translations. Anyone who speaks multiple languages is aware that translating something literally is often a mistake, and that's the type of problem I see cited most often. Such mistakes are usually the result of appointing someone to the task of localization who is not a fluent speaker of both languages. Major publishers seem to have learned their lesson and avoid this mistake now.

So localization practices have improved, but I wonder about non-verbal language... meaning body language and similar things. How often is a lack of translation for that aspect of language problematic for gamers? Do designers pay any attention to it?

If it is a problem, can anything be done about it and be worth the expense? Afterall, we're not talking about text anymore.

For example, consider proxemics. Proxemics refers to the distance two or more people are expected to keep between each other when talking, as well as things like touching. How close you stand to someone and how you touch them communicates information, and what that information is interpreted to be depends on the culture of the observer. Two Iranian men are likely to stand much closer to one another as they casually chat than two American men would. It is also not uncommon in that part of the world for two men to walk down the street holding hands. A typical American is likely to interpret this to mean the men are gay, but it has no romantic connotation in the other culture.

Even within one country, this aspect of language can vary significantly. In rural areas of the United States, the act of shaking hands is often considered an essential greeting or seal to agreements, and a failure to do so can be taken as an offense or incite distrust. In some parts of America, women expect hugs even from strangers in casual settings.

Tone and volume are other points of misinterpretation. Many conversations between an American employer and employee would likely shock some foreigners because the employee is not being properly submissive in tone. Rich people often misinterpret a poor person's loudness as being obnoxious, whereas poor people often misinterpret a rich person's quiet speech as being snobbish.

Anyway, you get the general idea. Changing text is one thing, but changing non-verbal language involves extra voice-acting, extra animations, etc. Is this a problem worth dealing with?


Perhaps we should begin by simply asking how often it's a problem. Can you cite any examples in your own experience where a foreign game gave you the wrong impression?

For example, cutscenes and voice-acting in Asian games often seem melodramatic to me. Some of that's due to poor scripting and acting, but I believe some of it's due to cultural differences in loudness, tone, pitch, etc.

when friends are enemies

Writers learn that characters can be flat or round (stereotypical vs complex, mythical vs factual). But conflict is seldom discussed in terms of flat or round. A round character has both good and bad aspects, and the audience is expected to consider both. A round conflict similarly invites the audience to pick a side without wholly rejecting or supporting either.

Many stories involve friends who become enemies or enemies who become friends. Few involve characters who remain both enemy and friend. The movies Heat and Gangs of New York are two examples. This rarity is understandable, since it's not common in reality. Human beings are emotional, and it's difficult to openly struggle against friends or associate with enemies; so few do so. But, as those films demonstrate, unbreaking juxtaposition of love and opposition can be a powerful story element.

A milder example is the relationship between Mal and Inara in the TV series Firefly. Their relationship is charged with romantic attraction, yet at the same time they are distanced by Mal's disapproval of Inara's whoring and Inara's occasional undermining of Mal's authority as ship captain. A similar example is the relationship between Captain Jack Aubrey and Dr Stephen Maturin in Master and Commander.

I have no problem with the use of myths -- stories using straw figures purposefully and well. But I would like to see more games involving plots that are less about good vs bad than about the inevitable conflicts which arise from differences in values and perspectives.

Challenge yourself to write a story in which all the main characters are essentially good but conflict arises anyway.

the game must go on

Last night, I played LOTR: Battle for Midde Earth 2 (RotWK expansion) with a cousin for the first time in months. Neither of us had played in all that time, and we knew we'd be rusty. We started a war... and, sure enough, we lost the first battle. But we were back in the swing of things by the third battle.

A benefit of the form, a non-linear series of challenges, that a player can fail and not feel discouraged. Had my cousin and I been forced to replay the exact same scenario until we beat it, returning to the game after such a long hiatus would not have been as fun.

In general, it's good for players to have options and variety even when they fail. Reward success by means other than level/story progression.

Peggle

Check out Peggle, if you haven't already. I think it's one of the best arcade games on Xbox Live, and the PC version is currently selling for just five bucks.

It seems to use billiards for inspiration. You try to aim precisely, to anticipate how the cue ball will ricochet, to hit some targets before others, and there's even a moving pocket at the bottom. In fact, it's almost like a marriage between billiards and pinball.

Unlike billiards, you get points for everything you hit. And though the formation of targets is the same every time on any particular board, the placement is different. The goal of the game is to knock out all of the red targets with ten cue balls (you can win extra balls through points or special green targets). In addition to targeting your cue ball, you also have to time your shots. If you ball is picked up by the moving pocket at the bottom, you get it back. Other times, the targets are moving.

Much of the fun is in believing you know what's going to happen when you shoot your ball, and then being sadly happily mistaken. Sometimes your ball will ricochet a dozen or more times before finally falling.

The other big factor is dynamics. As I said already, the placement of red, green, and blue targets on the board is different every time. This is huge, because it means you must use a different strategy each time you play the same board. Also, depending on the board, hitting the green targets does different things (adds pinball flippers, splits the ball into two, guides your next shot, etc), and you can eventually select which effect you want the green targets to have. There's a wide variety of boards, including ones with moving targets and obstacles.

I'm not going to review the whole thing. I haven't played the Challenges or multiplayer yet, but it's worth the price even without those modes. I've been frustrated a couple times by not being able to reach some targets (because I aimed earlier shots wrong or just bad luck), but the experience has almost always been enjoyable. So, as I said, check it out.

I've come to really respect PopCap Games. Feeding Frenzy and Zuma are also among the best arcade games on Xbox Live, and Bejeweled is a nice go-through-the-motions stress relief. I'll have to try some of their others.

CoD6 suggestions

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is one of the best games on the 360. But no game's perfect, so here's some changes I would make for CoD6. I'll also throw in some ideas for the campaign.


SINGLEPLAYER

American troops and our allies are stationed all over the world at any given moment. So how about some settings we're not used to seeing (southeast Asia, north Africa, South America, etc)? If the Middle East is again the focus, then possible settings include the caves of Afghanistan or a battle within a single building, such as a school or ampitheater.

Weather is a major factor in warfare. Hell, it has outright won or lost battles and even wars. Show us. Gusts of wind can displace tossed grenades and spread fires. Tropical rain can disrupt vision, slow movement, and make ways impassable. A sandstorm could trap enemies together

Soldiers don't just work and interact with fellow soldiers. Make civilians, combatants and non-combatants, a part of gameplay. In fact, you might include one level in which the player goes on a light-hearted hunting trip with a local civilian, to bind the player emotionally to the town or whatever he later defends and remind the player that war isn't always constant battles. I suggest hunting because that is a civilian activity based on the same basic gameplay (shooting), requiring less scripting and new assets.

Introduce friendly fire and civilian casualties. Both are a part of every war. If well implemented, this could get more emotional investment from the player.


CO-OP

Take your cues from Left 4 Dead. As I've said before, that game has the best representation of dependence and sacrifice of any game I've played to date. Brotherhood is a central theme in every branch of military, and cooperative gameplay is where that needs to shine.

Sacrifice is key. Enable the player to give to fellow players and companion NPCs in ways that hurt his own character and his own playtime. Regarding NPCs, I've written before on empathy. Regarding fellow players, consider the example in Left 4 Dead of one player telling others to leave him or her behind to save themselves... a request which means the person is no longer playing for a while, only watching and talking to the other players (sometimes feeding them valuable intel)... though obviously it's usually better if all players remain playing.


MULTIPLAYER

Every time the player goes to the "Select Class" screen, show a number by each class to indicate how many allies are currently playing each class. That will allow versatile players to fill in the gaps; help us see which roles are needed at any given moment.

Allow us to mute players without having to go to their gamercard screen.

Again, weather. If it was different from battle to battle (the same map), that could make for a fun dynamic.

You might be able to encourage a better social atmosphere by enabling players to vote each other up or down in a leadership ranking, separate from combat ranking. Real militaries do not promote soldiers purely for weapon skills and combat prowess, but also for exemplary social actions... like taking risks for other players, going back for injured comrades, helping others to improve, offering inspiration, and basically providing for the needs of others. How exactly to reward players for such behavior, I'm not sure. But it would definitely be worth it to promote sacrifice and philanthropy in the multiplayer community through tangible rewards, similar to a Purple Heart or Silver Star.

Again, sacrifice. Allow a player to give ammo to an ally, thereby depleting his own resources. Or allow a player to "cry for help", making his icon on allies' maps blink, to indicate he could use backup when he finds himself the only one guarding a flag in Domination or having run out of ammo.


What are your ideas?

Crank

I'm surprised the movie Crank hasn't been made into a game. Well, it has, but I mean a big AAA 360/PS3/PC game.

If you've never seen the film, the gist is that the protagonist has been poisoned and his heart will stop if he doesn't keep adrenaline running through his veins.

Imagine a game where you can't stand still for long. You have to constantly be sprinting, speeding, shooting, tumbling, or keeping the pace up in some other just to stay alive. The basis of the game is that the pace is almost always intense.

Adrenalin does warp a person's concept of time, so I suppose the game might be perforated with moments of slow-motion. That might be a reward for maxing out adrenalin, or it might occur at specific moments of the game (such as a gun battle involving many enemies or a squeeze through European alleys with a sportscar).

It could make for some fun multiplayer, too. Imagine how hectic a battle would be if player's couldn't afford to poach or pause long in cover. In fact, it might make for an interesting multiplayer mode in other games.

real-time rewards

One of the coolest features in Call of Duty 4 multiplayer is the way players are rewarded for getting so many consecutive kills without dying. Kill 3 enemies without dying and you can call in recon (see where enemies are on the map). Kill 5 enemies without dying and you can call in an airstrike. Kill 7 enemies without dying and you can call in an attack helicopter.

Why don't we see this sort of thing in single-player and co-op modes?

if it ain't broke...

I agree whole-heartedly with Daniel Clancy that a game doesn't have to be innovative to be excellent.

That a game offers nothing new is not necessarily a strike against it. A game can alternatively excel by honing old ideas or combining the right elements.

I've written somewhere before that slapping together only top-notch gameplay elements does not always make a top-notch game. Some elements are individually great, but don't fit well together or fit better with others. And sometimes it's the recognition of compatibility between elements that usually appear separately, or the ordering and emphasis of elements, that makes a game phenomenal.

Don't be afraid to repeat something that's tried and true. Things are often become tradition or the most common of their kind because they're simply the best. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

personal integration

I downloaded a jigsaw puzzle game the other day called Puzzle Arcade. I haven't spent much time with it yet, but I know I will... especially since it's something my non-gaming family can enjoy when we get together during the holidays. One of the game's cooler features (which I can't use yet, since I don't own an Xbox Live Vision Camera) is being able to upload your own images for puzzles. Apparently, you can't save those custom puzzles if left unfinished, but it's still cool.

I love the idea of players introducing unique, personal content in such a simple way.

I've said before that MMO designers should move screenshot viewing in-game.

Audio integration, such as enabling players with mics to record brief clips for character use (warcries, taunts, jokes, etc), is another possibility.

Another example is linking game audio to a gamer's mp3 library so that particular player-selected mp3s are triggered by particular events. It could be as general as this song for combat and that playlist for driving. Or it could be as specific as playing this song when I equip my two-handed maul, playing another song when I equip my bow-and-arrows, another song when I hop on my horse, another when the sun sets, etc.

Face-mapping isn't easy, but seems possible. Allow players to upload a photo of their own faces from a particular perspective. Software finds certain points on the face (nose tip, bridge width, eye spacing, etc), and then recreates the same characteristics in the character creation system. Note that I'm not talking about overlaying a character model with the actual photograph. I'm talking about using a photo as reference for a virtual representation using a creation system like that of Everquest 2 and Saints Row 2.

These personalizations require minimal effort from the player and don't require active input or feedback from developers (past initial production, I mean). What are some other possibilities?

keep mood and tone dynamic

A friend suggested that Fallout 3 is "too soulless for its own good". I have to agree. It's a great game, certainly. But the relentless dreariness works against it.

Dynamics in mood and tone are vital for any RPG, and games in general. This is particularly true for visual presentation.

Fallout 3's environmental design is really impressive, particularly due to the scope and level of detail. But it's bleak, almost without exception. That certainly fits the story and the overall tone of the game. However, too much consecutive bleakness ultimately has the same effect it would have in true life -- it drains enthusiasm and motivation.

With a game so big, there are undoubtedly factors at play which differ from player to player. If you initially focus on wandering and sidequests, as I did, then it can be a very long time before you enter Tenpenny Tower or the wooded sanctuary. For perspective, I've spent dozens of hours in the game and explored much of the world, but am hardly beyond Tenpenny in the main questline.

In any case, it's good in any RPG to offer a variety of environments with different color palettes and tones, as well as missions/quests and encounters with a variety of moods. Dynamics provide freshness, which is necessary to maintain momentum and excitement. This is one of the reasons I think color palettes and elegant designs like World of Warcraft uses are the best visual design option for the majority of games.

I still enjoy Fallout 3 (though I haven't played in a while), but the different areas and experiences of the gameworld started to blend together after a while.

reset

I finally got past rank 55 in CoD4 multiplayer, which means that I've entered Prestige Mode. Prestige means that all of my weapon and Perk unlocks, and all of my Challenge completions are undone, but my stats remain intact and an icon by my name tells everyone of my accomplishment.

This is an awesome feature. Gamers have always been able to start games over, but it's rare to be rewarded for doing so (unless you count accomplishments for higher difficulty levels). CoD4's system offers only bragging rights. I'd like to see games with more tangible rewards for restarting.

Diablo 2 might have the best reset system. After completing the five-act adventure, the player has the option to replay all quests and areas while retaining all skill, attribute, and equipment progress. It's the same adventure taking place under very different circumstances -- a powerful player-character, powerful NPCs, more loot and more skills.

An MMO that never really materialized, originally called Realms of Torment, had a concept of character generations. The player's character would slowly age and eventually die. In that time, the character would marry, which would produce a child. The player would then start over as the child, but the child would begin with some of the former characters equipment and a blend of both parents attributes and skills. Theoretically, the marriages could take place in different parts of the world, thereby allowing each player-character to begin from a different location. And the cycle repeats.

Another failed MMO, Trials of Ascension (one of my favorite game ideas), also allowed characters to die permanently. But in that game, each life of the player would have tangible effects on the gameworld. And the player had the option to sacrifice some time to leave an artifact behind. The artifact would be an item with extraordinary power, and possibly an associated legend, hidden randomly in the gameworld for another player to discover.

There are many ways to reward players for starting over and keeping that replay fun. I wish games would do so more often.


Incidentally, this gives me a very general idea for a game. Imagine a single-player adventure with automatic saves and no manual saves. Throughout, there are many choices, some with far-reaching consequences. There are many possible endings to the game... not just plot possibilities, but which characters end up alive or dead, successful or defeated, etc. Each time the player beats the game, he can do it all over again with knowledge gained from experience, shaping new choices.

The gist, and the hardest part of the game's design, is to make it difficult for the player to find a wholly satisfactory ending. In other words, the player is encouraged to keep replaying until he achieves the "perfect" playthrough. If many of those choices are not as simple as right/wrong or happy/sad, then the player might sometimes change a decision and realize the first was actually better. Anyway...

unstable XBL hosts

I played a lot of Call of Duty 4 on my 360 over the weekend. One thing that has always bugged me about that game is how often matches are cut short when the host leaves/ends the game, presumably because of an interrupted connection most of the time.

That such interruptions occur from time to time is understandable. What isn't understandable is how it can happen repeatedly to the same host.

I'm no techie, so perhaps I'm missing something. But it seems this could be fixed if hosting was automatically switched to another player's console whenever the current host repeatedly suffers connection problems or continues to manually end games (not counting private matches, of course). Is this not possible? not feasible?

fasting

Games don't have to choose between making resources either plentiful or scarce. No resource has to be supplied in steady stream throughout the game -- be it ammo, mana, health, gear, or other.

My religion, like others, includes an annual time of fasting. For forty days, we make especially difficult sacrifices to remind ourselves of our reliance on God. A game's players can similarly be called to fast; to go without something they normally have access to. The fast can be forced, encouraged, or merely suggested. The player might even be given the choice of what to sacrifice. There's a variety of possible benefits.

The general idea of a fast has been implemented many times before, but I believe there's still plenty of room for innovation.

The most common form of fasting in games is temporarily forcing the player to use a particular weapon or category of weapons. Bioshock, for example, occasionally removes the player's guns so that plasmids must be relied on exclusively. Many shooter games remove players' preferred weapons from time to time.

Another form is lack of aid resources. Left 4 Dead's AI director sometimes makes first aid kits unavailable to increase difficulty.

The form of fasting I find most compelling is reliance on persons or characters. This might be more common in games than I can recall right now, but I'm sure much more exploration is possible.

As in my religious example, such reliance might be constant throughout one's experience but reinforced in a particular moment. People tend to ignore what they are used to, so the momentary emphasis is important. For example, the player in Deus Ex is constantly dependent on NPCs to understand the what's going on (the plot), but it's not until the player realizes he has been lied to or manipulated that he becomes actively aware of that dependence.

A couple shooter games I've played included moments when the player's wounded character is firing at enemies while being dragged by an NPC ally. Left 4 Dead is fully of dependency caused by temporary inability (such as being pinned beneath a Hunter).

What other forms might fasting take in games? and to what purposes?

pots vs chests

Apparently, Blizzard developers have at least had internal discussions about treasure chests and keys. It's not a debate that must be limited to fantasy games. Lockers, desks, and ammo crates often perform the same role in realistic FPS games. The essential question is this: When loot is part of gameplay, is it better to control supplies by distribution or by access?

Keys and hacks are methods of access control. The player might be able to see where the loot is stored, but he cannot access that loot because the container is locked. Supply is determined by skill (such as hacking ability) or by meta-loot (such as keys).

Unlocked or open containers are methods of distribution control. If the player can see it, the player can get it. Supply is determined by the frequency and locations of containers.

Which would you use? or would you use a combination of the two?

Fable 2 has locked chests requiring silver keys to open, with silver keys hidden in fixed locations around the gameworld. This has two benefits: (1) the player is encouraged to explore, and (2) anticipation is allowed to build before loot is acquired. Unfortunately, I don't recall any loot in those chests being that spectacular, so the lack of access is more disappointing than exhilirating. And searching for silver keys rarely, if ever, leads to other rewards (even aesthetic rewards, like a striking view).

Diablo 2 has both locked and unlocked containers, with keys acquirable by drop and by purchase. The main problems here are: (1) keys are so common and cheap as to be mundane, and (2) locked chests don't always provide better loot than unlocked containers. Again, keys don't seem to be much fun.

Fallout 3 and Oblivion make unlocking loot containers a skill. The result is that loot frequency becomes an important variable to overall gameplay -- if you can't or won't pick/hack locks, then your character must make do with far less equipment and money. This is a better use of access control. Bioshock also uses this system, though in a more fluid way (allowing skill-augments to be swapped out).

I prefer distribution control. Diablo 2's gear and loot system, overall, is less about maintaining needs than discovering wants. It favors spectacular finds over mundane acquisitions.

Can an access system, like keys and hacks, be spectacular?

pay-to-play events

It seems strange to me that DLC always takes the form of permanent content... always as objects, rather than events.

In the case of MMOs, it would be hard to charge for events after so many years of including that service in the subscription package. But I'm surprised games like Call of Duty 4 and Rock Band 2 don't have pay-to-play events.

It could take any number of forms. Tournaments could offer real prizes, which were bought with entry money. Music games could offer songs as temporary downloads (surely, record labels would make more songs available then). This stuff could be offered for pennies.

offline play isn't going anywhere

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.