I was just having a read of Sutton-Smith's model for psychological experience during games. Written in 1986, he denotes visual scanning, auditory discriminations, motor responses, concentration, and perceptual patterns of learning, are the primary cognitive actions we undertake during play. After having a look at these and comparing it to my own experience of play... I've gotta say, he's nailed it. However, I think the psychological requirements of players have extended beyond anything he would've been able to see back then.
Visual scanning has gone to a whole new level on current gen systems. Rather than just a simple scan of the screen, as in the case of the old Atari games, players are called upon to manage and react to a significant amount of information. First person shooter games often display several dozen enemies that the player must account for at any one time. These games also usually take place within larger contexts, such as barren battlefields or even interplanetary wars (eg. Halo). In addition to the frantic flashes of light and managing of things currently on a screen, players are also given radars and sometimes communication windows to go beyond just what can be seen from the player point of view. Moreover, the first person perspective boosts the perceptive requirement of the player to supercomputer levels.
Auditory discriminations have also been extended like visual scanning, and more thoroughly exploited in current games. The creation of the music game, for instance, requires players to have heightened reactive auditory awareness. Not only are we reacting to sound effects or drums or little game beeps, but we are now required to ponder volumes of spoken dialogue rivaling the contents of novels.
Motor responses have been taken to a whole new place with the creation of gesture-based gaming. No doubt the Wii has had something to do with this (good 'ol Nintendo). Rather than just the tapping of A to kill the bugs in Greenhouse Game And Watch, players, quite literally, physically respond to something on screen. In the case of my game idea, players would need to constantly physically block attacks and attempt their own with the movement of their whole bodies, rather than just their thumbs and trigger fingers.
Concentration... probably isn't strong enough of a word anymore. You can concentrate in some games and still fail to complete them. I think a more appropriate term would be something like "trance" or "religious activity". The amount of information and the instantaneous reaction time requirements presented in some current games is far too high for you to just "concentrate". Try playing Through the Fire and the Flames in Guitar Hero 3 on Expert while just "concentrating". Try beating Samurai Goroh on very hard mode in F-Zero GX without going into a trance.
Finally... perception patterns in learning has by and large become superseded. We aren't just coming to know the nuisances of the games we play. What started as a marketing strategy has now become a requirement for developers: players need to be able to live in the game world. The replacement term should be immersion. Players now crave to be immersed in their game experience. They want to feel included, but not just on a surface level. They want to be drenched in the lore and the backstory of the games (eg. Guild Wars). They want to be able to pick up and play and find their characters have permanence to their development (eg. WOW, Oblivion). They want to be taken away by the narrative emotionally and... strangely sometimes physically (eg. Final Fantasy VII, Mass Effect).
Who knows how much further along the psyche of players will be taken? I'm sure Sutton-Smith didn't see the MMORPG or the Wii coming. It's exciting to think about where this industry can and will end up.
Psychological Model from: Toys as Culture, New York: Gardner Press, 1986
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
At the beginning of the best of times
So now that I have some idea of a good use of interaction (one-to-one Wii fighting), and a character progression ideda to try out (logarithmic point for point spending), I need to sort out what sort of starting and ending conditions I would have in my own game.
Probably wise to start from the start (GET IT). The character would be the pilot of a mechanical warrior similar to a Gundam (of Mobile Suit Anime fame) or a MechWarrior, but smalle rand more responsive to control. This would start as a form of entertainment similar to gladiators of yore, and eventually become so popular and powerful the military would start to take notice. The player would start off with little to no knowledge about the protagonist, as to create intrigue and lead the player in a journey or being able to gradually relate to the player without being so overwhelmed with knowledge from the offset.
The state of the game world would probably start off peacefully in reflection of the narrative. This also provides some sort of tutorial mechanism, in providing easier challenges and fights to get the player adjusted to the nuisances of the controls and the fighting system. The player would start with a set of fairly basic skills initially - I wouldn't give an Mega Super Ultra Hyper Annihilator Beam straight off. They would have some special attacks like rockets and/or lasers, and have some lower stats based on a selected specialization or class.
The mentioned tutorial or introduction mechanism would be a simple fight against a weak but cocky opponent to give the player a feeling of triumph in accomplishing the first task. This should ensure that the player gets a basic feel of the gameplay, and also ease them into the interaction and nuisances of the fighting system. Of course, this also allows players who are playing a second time through to defeat the first opponent with some advanced fighting techniques they've learnt.
I think as part of character progression, a rival would be excellent. Someone or a set of people who turn up all throughout the game, but not consistently. They would also have their skills develop throughout.
The ending conditions would ultimately have the player controlling a ridiculously high powered machine with blinding speed and battlefield-shaping attacks. The state of the world would be a wa-ravaged, mid-apocyliptic mess of politics and high skill battles. The final boss would be something epic, in the scale of a world dictator and his innumerable hi-tech army.
Now that I have this framework, all I now need to do is to assess the "fun" factor of these ideas.
Probably wise to start from the start (GET IT). The character would be the pilot of a mechanical warrior similar to a Gundam (of Mobile Suit Anime fame) or a MechWarrior, but smalle rand more responsive to control. This would start as a form of entertainment similar to gladiators of yore, and eventually become so popular and powerful the military would start to take notice. The player would start off with little to no knowledge about the protagonist, as to create intrigue and lead the player in a journey or being able to gradually relate to the player without being so overwhelmed with knowledge from the offset.
The state of the game world would probably start off peacefully in reflection of the narrative. This also provides some sort of tutorial mechanism, in providing easier challenges and fights to get the player adjusted to the nuisances of the controls and the fighting system. The player would start with a set of fairly basic skills initially - I wouldn't give an Mega Super Ultra Hyper Annihilator Beam straight off. They would have some special attacks like rockets and/or lasers, and have some lower stats based on a selected specialization or class.
The mentioned tutorial or introduction mechanism would be a simple fight against a weak but cocky opponent to give the player a feeling of triumph in accomplishing the first task. This should ensure that the player gets a basic feel of the gameplay, and also ease them into the interaction and nuisances of the fighting system. Of course, this also allows players who are playing a second time through to defeat the first opponent with some advanced fighting techniques they've learnt.
I think as part of character progression, a rival would be excellent. Someone or a set of people who turn up all throughout the game, but not consistently. They would also have their skills develop throughout.
The ending conditions would ultimately have the player controlling a ridiculously high powered machine with blinding speed and battlefield-shaping attacks. The state of the world would be a wa-ravaged, mid-apocyliptic mess of politics and high skill battles. The final boss would be something epic, in the scale of a world dictator and his innumerable hi-tech army.
Now that I have this framework, all I now need to do is to assess the "fun" factor of these ideas.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Solid and Self-centred Design Choices
Good design requires an adequate level of player empathy. Players want to feel understood and not feel abused by the games designers during play. But some developers evidently can't help themselves and have to tease and mock us by neglecting our mindset while trying to enjoy their game. On the other hand, some developers are quite excellent at extending a compassionate hand of fun and joy to enrich the experience.
For example, Ninja Gaiden was quite a challenging game. That was half the fun, methinks. The insurmountable challenge it presented was more of a dare than a taunt. It was really nice though. If you got to one part and you kept dying, it would ask if you would like to try the same section of gameplay on a lower difficulty setting. Waves and waves of love once again filled our hearts. I am indeed understood.
Super Paper Mario was an absolutely brilliant piece of software. Even more brilliant was the macro-choice to interweave a broken fourth wall into the narrative. We're always thinking "dude, if Mario is told to press (A) to use his flip ability, what would he think?" The game capitalizes on this, where the informant character replies "what is this (A) you speak of? Don't worry, the observer gets it, and that's the main thing". The entire game is full of these moments where the player feels completely included in the runnings of the game. Exactly what we've been thinking since Super Mario Bros.
I have no idea who invented it, but I need to shake their hand and buy them a nice present. The autosave. Best. Design. Decision. EVER. Instead of being ruled by the fear of AHHH I DIDN'T REACH THE LAST SAVE POINT AND NOW I HAVE TO PLAY THESE 7 HOURS ALL OVER AGAIN, games like KOTOR will automatically save your game at certain checkpoints. Genius!
Assassin's Creed was a great game. Unfortunately it is in the unsympathetic category, as it forces players to read and hear all dialog... WITHOUT THE OPTION TO SKIP. It was released in 2007 man. That's not right. That's just not right.
If you've been reading my past blogs, you'll know the KOTOR games are quite dear to me. Unforunately, KOTOR2 has a slight error in a small decision which puts it in this category. While you are given the ability to skip almost all passages of dialog, KOTOR 2 has one section where this alien that speaks another language cannot be skipped at all. It goes one up on Assassin's in that the alien makes the same long boring painful sound effect each time. Ouch.
As much as it pains me, even the Metroid Prime series had a design flaw. In Prime 2, the difficulty curve was just perfect. That is, til this boss character appears known as the Boost Guardian. You fight him in the dark world where there are light bubbles that keep you safe from the poisonous atmosphere. All except in this room. It doesn't sound like much, but when you are being attacked in a small room where these light bubbles aren't around for the first time in the game, the difficulty ramps up much faster than most players can adapt to.
Once again, flow seems to be the most critical aspect of enjoyable interaction. One small mishap and it really destroys the experience.
For example, Ninja Gaiden was quite a challenging game. That was half the fun, methinks. The insurmountable challenge it presented was more of a dare than a taunt. It was really nice though. If you got to one part and you kept dying, it would ask if you would like to try the same section of gameplay on a lower difficulty setting. Waves and waves of love once again filled our hearts. I am indeed understood.
Super Paper Mario was an absolutely brilliant piece of software. Even more brilliant was the macro-choice to interweave a broken fourth wall into the narrative. We're always thinking "dude, if Mario is told to press (A) to use his flip ability, what would he think?" The game capitalizes on this, where the informant character replies "what is this (A) you speak of? Don't worry, the observer gets it, and that's the main thing". The entire game is full of these moments where the player feels completely included in the runnings of the game. Exactly what we've been thinking since Super Mario Bros.
I have no idea who invented it, but I need to shake their hand and buy them a nice present. The autosave. Best. Design. Decision. EVER. Instead of being ruled by the fear of AHHH I DIDN'T REACH THE LAST SAVE POINT AND NOW I HAVE TO PLAY THESE 7 HOURS ALL OVER AGAIN, games like KOTOR will automatically save your game at certain checkpoints. Genius!
Assassin's Creed was a great game. Unfortunately it is in the unsympathetic category, as it forces players to read and hear all dialog... WITHOUT THE OPTION TO SKIP. It was released in 2007 man. That's not right. That's just not right.
If you've been reading my past blogs, you'll know the KOTOR games are quite dear to me. Unforunately, KOTOR2 has a slight error in a small decision which puts it in this category. While you are given the ability to skip almost all passages of dialog, KOTOR 2 has one section where this alien that speaks another language cannot be skipped at all. It goes one up on Assassin's in that the alien makes the same long boring painful sound effect each time. Ouch.
As much as it pains me, even the Metroid Prime series had a design flaw. In Prime 2, the difficulty curve was just perfect. That is, til this boss character appears known as the Boost Guardian. You fight him in the dark world where there are light bubbles that keep you safe from the poisonous atmosphere. All except in this room. It doesn't sound like much, but when you are being attacked in a small room where these light bubbles aren't around for the first time in the game, the difficulty ramps up much faster than most players can adapt to.
Once again, flow seems to be the most critical aspect of enjoyable interaction. One small mishap and it really destroys the experience.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
MMORPs
It has often been contested that Second Life isn't a game. Apparently it doesn't meet the proper criteria to be considered as such. A lot of people conduct a lot of their business on it. Some levels of file-sharing takes place through its ability to upload custom content. IBM and Sun Microsystems are watching it ever so keenly for effective business use.
Maybe it's the sophisticated interface which does it (sophisticated being there aren't any major weapons or crazy aliens or G-Man or cakes that don't exist). Maybe the fact that your character doesn't level up, but rather can earn some sort of legit currency does it. Or maybe it's just cause talking about using a game for businesses doesn't "sound cool".
I contend that if Second Life isn't a game, World of Warcraft isn't either. They are almost completely identical according to the criteria for games as systems. So let's see if we've moved from MMORPGs to just MMORPs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Plays).
System - Both SL and WOW are fairly complicated pieces of software. Everything functions together as a system - all the different classes and objects and methods and scripting fit together to form a functioning whole.
Me - 1, People who don't think Second Life is a Game (herein referred to as PWDTSLIAG) - 0
Players - Both titles (I almost said games cause, they are) contain a large amount of players. All of these players are involved in heavy interaction, such as trade, chat or task-based networking.
Me - 2, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Artificiality - This is probably the grey area which caused many people to be confused. People say that because real money can be used in Second Life, the fourth wall is knocked down. I'd argue that if this is justification for an OpenGL application with the same controls as a game, same feel and same options available, to not be considered one, World Of Warcraft also is not artificial. The copious amounts of earnings which can be made by gold farming, buying accounts or trading equipment equally, if not moreso destroys this fourth wall.
Me - 3, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Conflict - Both WOW and Second Life provide incredibly open ended gameplay (there, I said it). The main difference here would be that WOW provides some sort of context for contesting powers as part of the narrative. Horde vs. Alliance. People striving for the best gear. Player vs player quests. Lots of opportunity for struggle. Isn't this is the same in Second Life? Everyone's a captialist, striving to monopolise the whole game. People invest money to buy territory. You can create and upload your own scripts so your clothing is better than the Jones'. Just missing the narrative.
Me - 4, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Rules - As mentioned, WOW and Second Life are extremely open ended in terms of what can be done, but at the same time, adequately restricted to prevent them moving outside of the "game" mechanic. Eg. You can't teleport anywhere initially, content is usually restricted for editting by the owner etc.
Me - 5, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Quantifiable Outcome - Both titles don't have one, or nothing conventional at least. There is no "game over" screen. You just keep playing til you get bored. There are definitely quantifiable achievements and goals in both products. Just no real way to end them. If this stops Second Life, it also stops WOW and all other MMORPGs.
Me - 6, PWDTSLIAG - 0
So it would seem that either Second Life is a game based on these criteria, or WOW isn't. It's ok to use a game in businesses and still call it a game. Methinks we shouldn't destroy the entire MMORPG genre as a result.
(Criteria taken from Drennan, P. Fundamentals for Games Design Lecture 3 - Games as Dynamic Systems. 2008, accessed 16 March 2008).
Maybe it's the sophisticated interface which does it (sophisticated being there aren't any major weapons or crazy aliens or G-Man or cakes that don't exist). Maybe the fact that your character doesn't level up, but rather can earn some sort of legit currency does it. Or maybe it's just cause talking about using a game for businesses doesn't "sound cool".
I contend that if Second Life isn't a game, World of Warcraft isn't either. They are almost completely identical according to the criteria for games as systems. So let's see if we've moved from MMORPGs to just MMORPs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Plays).
System - Both SL and WOW are fairly complicated pieces of software. Everything functions together as a system - all the different classes and objects and methods and scripting fit together to form a functioning whole.
Me - 1, People who don't think Second Life is a Game (herein referred to as PWDTSLIAG) - 0
Players - Both titles (I almost said games cause, they are) contain a large amount of players. All of these players are involved in heavy interaction, such as trade, chat or task-based networking.
Me - 2, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Artificiality - This is probably the grey area which caused many people to be confused. People say that because real money can be used in Second Life, the fourth wall is knocked down. I'd argue that if this is justification for an OpenGL application with the same controls as a game, same feel and same options available, to not be considered one, World Of Warcraft also is not artificial. The copious amounts of earnings which can be made by gold farming, buying accounts or trading equipment equally, if not moreso destroys this fourth wall.
Me - 3, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Conflict - Both WOW and Second Life provide incredibly open ended gameplay (there, I said it). The main difference here would be that WOW provides some sort of context for contesting powers as part of the narrative. Horde vs. Alliance. People striving for the best gear. Player vs player quests. Lots of opportunity for struggle. Isn't this is the same in Second Life? Everyone's a captialist, striving to monopolise the whole game. People invest money to buy territory. You can create and upload your own scripts so your clothing is better than the Jones'. Just missing the narrative.
Me - 4, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Rules - As mentioned, WOW and Second Life are extremely open ended in terms of what can be done, but at the same time, adequately restricted to prevent them moving outside of the "game" mechanic. Eg. You can't teleport anywhere initially, content is usually restricted for editting by the owner etc.
Me - 5, PWDTSLIAG - 0
Quantifiable Outcome - Both titles don't have one, or nothing conventional at least. There is no "game over" screen. You just keep playing til you get bored. There are definitely quantifiable achievements and goals in both products. Just no real way to end them. If this stops Second Life, it also stops WOW and all other MMORPGs.
Me - 6, PWDTSLIAG - 0
So it would seem that either Second Life is a game based on these criteria, or WOW isn't. It's ok to use a game in businesses and still call it a game. Methinks we shouldn't destroy the entire MMORPG genre as a result.
(Criteria taken from Drennan, P. Fundamentals for Games Design Lecture 3 - Games as Dynamic Systems. 2008, accessed 16 March 2008).
What we have so far
If I were asked right now to create a game, as in, right now, I would probably pause. There is a surprisingly huge number of considerations in game design. Shigeru Miyamoto had it easy in the 80s, where he could just bash together a non-story with tight controls, fat plumbers and annoying mushrooms and call it a huge hit. Now that the business world have seen that video games are a huge market, there are much more stringent criteria to meet.
The image of "the man" in the current environment would probably be embodied by the CEO or one of the producers in a games company. If you can't sell it to these guys, your game isn't gonna get it past your drawings of an epic whale in a uni notebook. I would like to say I would be able to completely nail the premise of a game to design at the moment, but honestly it wouldn't move much past:
The main aim of the game is to provide an enjoyable implementation of one-to-one combat on the Wii. It would be a hybrid between a fighting game and an RPG, with heavy focus on character progression and excellent interaction. Character progression would be revolutionary in that...
... and that's where the pitch would sort of fade of. I really think that the leveling up of yore needs to be extended or changed into something...
And just like that, I've had my breakthrough. At least I hope so. It's an idea that would need to be explored for "funability". Rather than collecting copious amounts of experience points before reaching a new level and being able to enhance your skills then, the player may just gain all these points and be able to spend them all straight away, on a one-to-one correspondence basis. You would be able to pour more and more points into a specific attribute until the effect diverges on some value logarithmically. Any more points put into that attribute would cause it to grow more slowly.
This would empower a player to focus on certain attributes with a high level of customisability. Levelling up would still exist, and would change the gradient of the curve. In other words, this would enable you to reach a higher plateau of skill, yet still increase point for point.
So the elevator pitch becomes:
The main aim of the game is to provide an enjoyable implementation of one-to-one combat on the Wii. It would be a hybrid between a fighting game and an RPG, with heavy focus on character progression and excellent interaction. Character progression would be revolutionary in that it empowers players with an unprecident amount of customisability and control than provided by traditional means.
I think I may be on to something here. Watch this space.
The image of "the man" in the current environment would probably be embodied by the CEO or one of the producers in a games company. If you can't sell it to these guys, your game isn't gonna get it past your drawings of an epic whale in a uni notebook. I would like to say I would be able to completely nail the premise of a game to design at the moment, but honestly it wouldn't move much past:
The main aim of the game is to provide an enjoyable implementation of one-to-one combat on the Wii. It would be a hybrid between a fighting game and an RPG, with heavy focus on character progression and excellent interaction. Character progression would be revolutionary in that...
... and that's where the pitch would sort of fade of. I really think that the leveling up of yore needs to be extended or changed into something...
And just like that, I've had my breakthrough. At least I hope so. It's an idea that would need to be explored for "funability". Rather than collecting copious amounts of experience points before reaching a new level and being able to enhance your skills then, the player may just gain all these points and be able to spend them all straight away, on a one-to-one correspondence basis. You would be able to pour more and more points into a specific attribute until the effect diverges on some value logarithmically. Any more points put into that attribute would cause it to grow more slowly.
This would empower a player to focus on certain attributes with a high level of customisability. Levelling up would still exist, and would change the gradient of the curve. In other words, this would enable you to reach a higher plateau of skill, yet still increase point for point.
So the elevator pitch becomes:
The main aim of the game is to provide an enjoyable implementation of one-to-one combat on the Wii. It would be a hybrid between a fighting game and an RPG, with heavy focus on character progression and excellent interaction. Character progression would be revolutionary in that it empowers players with an unprecident amount of customisability and control than provided by traditional means.
I think I may be on to something here. Watch this space.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Cloud rolls 20s
It seems like forever since we first played the first Final Fantasy. You just gained 67XP. Black Mage levelled up.
Then Diablo. You killed a skeleton. 120XP. Level up. New moves available.
Then even Pokemon. Pikachu gained 500XP. Pikachu levelled up. Pikachu is turning into an even larger rat thing. Congrats.
WOW. Your paladin gained 30XP. Paladin levelled up. Now you can buy those new skills.
...You get the point. Character progression in MANY games has been completely based on this original levelling up system. You are almost guaranteed of seeing this format in any modern RPG, and if you don't, then it's not worth playing (apparantely).
While tried and true, this would be an awesome spot for an innovation. Completely revolutionise character progression in RPGs. My problem is... I can't really think of how this could best be accomplished. A lot of other games have attempted something new though. Maybe I can find something by comparing all of them.
Final Fantasy X did something pretty different from the other FF games. It introduced the sphere system, where you could level up by going down a hierarchical tree. One part of the tree may be "increase HP by 50", which would then flow on to more related skillsets and rewards.
God Of War, rather than instantly giving you experience, has you trawling the environs for red orbs to power up your chains and your combos. You also get them for killing enemies.
Older shooter games such as UN Squadron on Super Nintendo and Raptor for PC had you shooting down planes and missile sites in order to get money. This money could be used to increase your power at the end of a level, buy new weapons etc.
One of the more original ideas I've seen recently was in a game called Dawn Of Mana for the PS2. Rather than the character gaining a whole level, the character has certain attributes which level up eg. HP and attack. The more of certain coloured medals are collected, the more the corresponding attribute levels up.
I guess to be completely different you'd have to push past this extremely popular mechanic. Maybe instead of levelling up, the character may need to keep doing certain things in order to prevent levelling down. This probably wouldn't be fun at all, but it would be something different. This is an area I'll keep thinking on for a while to come.
Then Diablo. You killed a skeleton. 120XP. Level up. New moves available.
Then even Pokemon. Pikachu gained 500XP. Pikachu levelled up. Pikachu is turning into an even larger rat thing. Congrats.
WOW. Your paladin gained 30XP. Paladin levelled up. Now you can buy those new skills.
...You get the point. Character progression in MANY games has been completely based on this original levelling up system. You are almost guaranteed of seeing this format in any modern RPG, and if you don't, then it's not worth playing (apparantely).
While tried and true, this would be an awesome spot for an innovation. Completely revolutionise character progression in RPGs. My problem is... I can't really think of how this could best be accomplished. A lot of other games have attempted something new though. Maybe I can find something by comparing all of them.
Final Fantasy X did something pretty different from the other FF games. It introduced the sphere system, where you could level up by going down a hierarchical tree. One part of the tree may be "increase HP by 50", which would then flow on to more related skillsets and rewards.
God Of War, rather than instantly giving you experience, has you trawling the environs for red orbs to power up your chains and your combos. You also get them for killing enemies.
Older shooter games such as UN Squadron on Super Nintendo and Raptor for PC had you shooting down planes and missile sites in order to get money. This money could be used to increase your power at the end of a level, buy new weapons etc.
One of the more original ideas I've seen recently was in a game called Dawn Of Mana for the PS2. Rather than the character gaining a whole level, the character has certain attributes which level up eg. HP and attack. The more of certain coloured medals are collected, the more the corresponding attribute levels up.
I guess to be completely different you'd have to push past this extremely popular mechanic. Maybe instead of levelling up, the character may need to keep doing certain things in order to prevent levelling down. This probably wouldn't be fun at all, but it would be something different. This is an area I'll keep thinking on for a while to come.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Drowning in sand
The sandbox game has become a dominant genre in the games industry. It started with GTA 3. Complete freedom. Non-linear story structure. No force pushing you towards a goal. Just you, your rifle and a thousand stolen cars, some dead cops, and violence that would make Jack Thompson run for the hills. I've noticed that since this game came out, non-linearity has started to become a requirement or an expectation for game titles.
A lot of reviews by GameTrailers, IGN, GameSpot and their cohorts have unofficially made this part of their stringent marking criteria. While games may play great, if they force a player towards any sort of goal, reviewers will take it upon themselves to lower their recommendation of a game. These reviews often have profound effects on a game's sales, and also subtlely sharing their idea of "21st Century games must always have elements of sandbox" with all their readers. A powerful vantage point, indeed.
Is having a defined and forced critical path really a bad thing now? A game like God of War, which has sold incredibly well even as a PS2 game in the "next-gen" scene, was about as far from a non-linear game as you could. Even so, it was ridiculously popular, and ridiculously fun. Having such clear cut starting and ending conditions as "start small" to "kill everything in your path til you get to the boss" provide ample opportunity for enjoyment.
Being told what to do isn't a problem when what you're doing is fun. Having a clear path to victory, or flashing signs telling you where to go is a lot easier for people to remember. Complete freeform is never fun.
I'm gonna tip some salt in the industry's eyes and say: Perhaps sandbox sometimes is a cop-out for poor game mechanics? Call me a sucker for ludus-based play (you're probably right), but it seems that "non-linearity" isn't a valid criteria for game reviews.
Being told what to do isn't a problem when what you're doing is fun. Having a clear path to victory, or flashing signs telling you where to go is a lot easier for people to remember. Complete freeform is never fun.
I'm gonna tip some salt in the industry's eyes and say: Perhaps sandbox sometimes is a cop-out for poor game mechanics? Call me a sucker for ludus-based play (you're probably right), but it seems that "non-linearity" isn't a valid criteria for game reviews.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Waiter, there are air bubbles in my gameplay!
So it seems our pursuit for fun is really just a pursuit for knowledge. Knowledge of some kind anyway. A game is like an injection of stimuli for the brain, with some titles evidently containing air bubbles in the syringe. There's nothing worse for a game experience than these air bubbles, these pockets of the game where your mind is suddenly disengaged from play, and the flow of your experience is taken down.
This crossed my mind as I continued to play Knights of the Old Republic. Solid game. Great gameplay. Engaging story. I've played it many times through, but not in a while. Until you reach this one planet known as Manaan, which is essentially a huge ocean with some cities on the top of it. The story progresses very well... until you reach a certain place where you are required to cross between one underwater facility to another. This is done using a space suit across the ocean floor. It wouldn't be so bad if... you had some form of weaponry, didn't move at 1/200th of the original running speed, and if the area you had to cross wasn't so large. It literally takes about 6 minutes to walk through (which is incredibly painful if you get eaten by the sharks along the way).
It's funny that out of all the great gameplay of the game, one moment of dullness where the player's mind is not engaged can destroy the momentum. Even though the developers did well to continually engage the player to this point, this void of new information has a powerful influence on the level of enjoyment of the game as a whole. It really is very important to ensure that new stimuli (that isn't droll) is constantly provided to maintain the "fun factor", the whole point of the game.
KOTOR has been highlighting something I've been thinking needs replacing for a while... I'll put more up in my next post.
This crossed my mind as I continued to play Knights of the Old Republic. Solid game. Great gameplay. Engaging story. I've played it many times through, but not in a while. Until you reach this one planet known as Manaan, which is essentially a huge ocean with some cities on the top of it. The story progresses very well... until you reach a certain place where you are required to cross between one underwater facility to another. This is done using a space suit across the ocean floor. It wouldn't be so bad if... you had some form of weaponry, didn't move at 1/200th of the original running speed, and if the area you had to cross wasn't so large. It literally takes about 6 minutes to walk through (which is incredibly painful if you get eaten by the sharks along the way).
It's funny that out of all the great gameplay of the game, one moment of dullness where the player's mind is not engaged can destroy the momentum. Even though the developers did well to continually engage the player to this point, this void of new information has a powerful influence on the level of enjoyment of the game as a whole. It really is very important to ensure that new stimuli (that isn't droll) is constantly provided to maintain the "fun factor", the whole point of the game.
KOTOR has been highlighting something I've been thinking needs replacing for a while... I'll put more up in my next post.
To tutorial or not to tutorial, that is the question
First impressions are incredibly important. I think this is a principle we have drilled into us from birth in our western societies. If the first experience you have at a new restaurant, or with a new boss, or a new job is poor, you are more likely to allow it to rule the rest of your experience.
I think this is also true of video games. If the starting portion of a game is poorly crafted, it tends to rule the experience. In a recent lecture, we were talking about starting conditions for players, and how the introduction of gameplay mechanics and story are fundamental to the experience. This led the discussion to the use of tutorials at the start of a game being required to progress through the rest of the game. Different games have handled this different ways, and with mixed results in my experience.
Take Second Life for example. I realise that many will not recognise Second Life as a game, but... I disagree. It can't be denied that it be played for the sure pleasure of getting your character to fly, then dropping them from some obscene height. In this regard, I hold Second Life as a game. Call it a real-time simulation featuring human interaction and business if you want. At any rate, I recently had to do a project in Second Life, and this required me to start my own account so I could get to a set-aside island, an area where we could muck around and do whatever we wished. I thought I'd just be able to sign in, teleport there, and get started. But no, I was abruptly interrupted by not just one forced tutorial, but four. Fairly mediocre at that. It required a lot of reading of arbitrary text, a lot of finding things on the hud, and doing things that just weren't that interesting at all. One of my friends attempted the same thing and found himself stuck in these tutorials for several weeks, just cause the experience was so poorly designed.
Dawn Of War for PC takes a slightly different angle on this whole idea. When you create a new player account and try to start a new game, you are prompted with "This is the first time you're playing. Would you like to play the tutorial?" You can then either just jump into whatever match you've started (heaven help you) or play through a very basic mission, which has you getting used to some of the basic tasks of the game. This was a better solution (as I already knew how to play when I installed it). That said, if you choose to do the campaign for the first time, the first mission is incredibly basic and also seems to walk you through the same ideas covered in the tutorial. Might be a bit of redundant information.
The best solution I found was in the Metroid Prime series on Gamecube and Wii. The way Metroid does it is by starting off the game, but places things in your path that will make you learn to play without pushing you too far. In Prime 3, in the first area you arrive in, you are asked to "calibrate your weapon by shooting these targets", which subtlely teaches you how to aim. The game doesn't force you to learn how to do things before giving you a practical situation to use them in. Rather, it flashes a small tooltip the first area you need to double jump, or strafe, and roll into a morph ball. This has the advantage of allowing more experienced players to bypass the "noobie" sections, without impeding on gameplay.
The main issue with the use of a tutorial or the use of some other mechanism is that of flow. The reason I probably like the Metroid style better is because there is no disruption of the flow of the game, and allows the game to seamlessly transition from the "intro" into a grander story, rather than having the player segment their experience. This seems to be the way games are heading now, and rightly so. Keep it coming!
I think this is also true of video games. If the starting portion of a game is poorly crafted, it tends to rule the experience. In a recent lecture, we were talking about starting conditions for players, and how the introduction of gameplay mechanics and story are fundamental to the experience. This led the discussion to the use of tutorials at the start of a game being required to progress through the rest of the game. Different games have handled this different ways, and with mixed results in my experience.
Take Second Life for example. I realise that many will not recognise Second Life as a game, but... I disagree. It can't be denied that it be played for the sure pleasure of getting your character to fly, then dropping them from some obscene height. In this regard, I hold Second Life as a game. Call it a real-time simulation featuring human interaction and business if you want. At any rate, I recently had to do a project in Second Life, and this required me to start my own account so I could get to a set-aside island, an area where we could muck around and do whatever we wished. I thought I'd just be able to sign in, teleport there, and get started. But no, I was abruptly interrupted by not just one forced tutorial, but four. Fairly mediocre at that. It required a lot of reading of arbitrary text, a lot of finding things on the hud, and doing things that just weren't that interesting at all. One of my friends attempted the same thing and found himself stuck in these tutorials for several weeks, just cause the experience was so poorly designed.
Dawn Of War for PC takes a slightly different angle on this whole idea. When you create a new player account and try to start a new game, you are prompted with "This is the first time you're playing. Would you like to play the tutorial?" You can then either just jump into whatever match you've started (heaven help you) or play through a very basic mission, which has you getting used to some of the basic tasks of the game. This was a better solution (as I already knew how to play when I installed it). That said, if you choose to do the campaign for the first time, the first mission is incredibly basic and also seems to walk you through the same ideas covered in the tutorial. Might be a bit of redundant information.
The best solution I found was in the Metroid Prime series on Gamecube and Wii. The way Metroid does it is by starting off the game, but places things in your path that will make you learn to play without pushing you too far. In Prime 3, in the first area you arrive in, you are asked to "calibrate your weapon by shooting these targets", which subtlely teaches you how to aim. The game doesn't force you to learn how to do things before giving you a practical situation to use them in. Rather, it flashes a small tooltip the first area you need to double jump, or strafe, and roll into a morph ball. This has the advantage of allowing more experienced players to bypass the "noobie" sections, without impeding on gameplay.
The main issue with the use of a tutorial or the use of some other mechanism is that of flow. The reason I probably like the Metroid style better is because there is no disruption of the flow of the game, and allows the game to seamlessly transition from the "intro" into a grander story, rather than having the player segment their experience. This seems to be the way games are heading now, and rightly so. Keep it coming!
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
The Under-explored Wii
As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm getting disappointed with what developers have attempted so far in terms of "something new". In particular, I've been thinking a lot about the Wii, since
a) I own one, and
b) I've thoroughly enjoyed the new life it has injected into the industry
My problem is: Innovation of interface and interaction were the initial premise under which the Wii was created, marketted and sold. The use of gesture-based interaction brought a whole new way to play and vastly expanded the entire gaming market. However, it has been Nintendo itself that has been the large moving force in any innovations with the console.
Even so, their releases have started to thin out. It started with a greatly successful Zelda: Twilight Princess, which added the slash and bow-and-arrow mechanics to the traditional Zelda experience and offered a polished title beyond what other companies have even begun to create. This was followed by a list of other titles, with Wii Sports being one of the most revolutionary (and successful) games of the ages. Speaking for myself, I thoroughly enjoyed Wii Boxing, with its almost one-to-one correspondence of arm movement to character movement blowing my mind away.
This has been my greatest consideration for development at the moment. One-to-one correspondence in a game could provide an amazing amount of depth and allow players to relate to characters in ways they hadn't done before. But my idea is something beyond that of the tech demo Wii Sports.
The idea is to fully flesh out a combat system using a similar but expanded engine to that presented in Wii Boxing. Much of the industry has been crying out for, and expecting, this level of interaction since the Wii's release. As such, there is a guaranteed market available for such a game.
For instance, Mortal Kombat Armageddon was advertised saying that you could control the fighters using the Wii Remote and Nun-Chuck. This caused the gaming community to dream and desire control of their favourite MK characters, only physically executing the actions. What they received was half-baked: you controlled characters using the Wii Remote and Nun-Chuck, yes, but most of the moves could be done by simulating a joystick movement rather than an actual hand movement. While it was still a decent title, the lack of this one-to-one component left a disappointment in gamers' hearts.
It's just an idea I'm thinking of at the moment. Whether or not this could actually create a fun game, or if it will just give a lot of people a bad case of RSI is yet to be seen... as yet.
a) I own one, and
b) I've thoroughly enjoyed the new life it has injected into the industry
My problem is: Innovation of interface and interaction were the initial premise under which the Wii was created, marketted and sold. The use of gesture-based interaction brought a whole new way to play and vastly expanded the entire gaming market. However, it has been Nintendo itself that has been the large moving force in any innovations with the console.
Even so, their releases have started to thin out. It started with a greatly successful Zelda: Twilight Princess, which added the slash and bow-and-arrow mechanics to the traditional Zelda experience and offered a polished title beyond what other companies have even begun to create. This was followed by a list of other titles, with Wii Sports being one of the most revolutionary (and successful) games of the ages. Speaking for myself, I thoroughly enjoyed Wii Boxing, with its almost one-to-one correspondence of arm movement to character movement blowing my mind away.
This has been my greatest consideration for development at the moment. One-to-one correspondence in a game could provide an amazing amount of depth and allow players to relate to characters in ways they hadn't done before. But my idea is something beyond that of the tech demo Wii Sports.
The idea is to fully flesh out a combat system using a similar but expanded engine to that presented in Wii Boxing. Much of the industry has been crying out for, and expecting, this level of interaction since the Wii's release. As such, there is a guaranteed market available for such a game.
For instance, Mortal Kombat Armageddon was advertised saying that you could control the fighters using the Wii Remote and Nun-Chuck. This caused the gaming community to dream and desire control of their favourite MK characters, only physically executing the actions. What they received was half-baked: you controlled characters using the Wii Remote and Nun-Chuck, yes, but most of the moves could be done by simulating a joystick movement rather than an actual hand movement. While it was still a decent title, the lack of this one-to-one component left a disappointment in gamers' hearts.
It's just an idea I'm thinking of at the moment. Whether or not this could actually create a fun game, or if it will just give a lot of people a bad case of RSI is yet to be seen... as yet.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Narrative vs. Mechanics
I've always been a real fan of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic games. Probably the most excellent use of the Star Wars licence in a game. The second was similarly brilliant in my opinion. Even moreso. I have played KOTOR 2 over and over more than any other game. The tweaks to the gameplay, the ability to further customise lightsabres and robes and armours, made it a much deeper experience. All who disagree with me on the matter of its supremacy to its prequel do so with regards to its story. As the game was rushed into release, much of its original content was cut, and the last few hours of the game were evidently devastated with regards to narrative.
The first game, on the other hand, presented a much more solid, Star Wars-based storyline with a similar feeling to the original movies. The villan was arguably more well developed than most of the villans in the sequel, the characters felt much more like Han Solos or Leia Organas than Disciples or Bao-dur (whatever he was). The twists in the first one were more thoroughly thought out than in the second.
It has been argued that narrative isn't that much of an important consideration in game development if the core gameplay is solid enough. This is the basis for my own favouritism of its gameplay. However, it would seem that the larger target market of the series found narrative far more important. As such, any sequel for the game would probably need to hone in on this narrative component.
This isn't the only game where narrative is a determining factor in a purchase or a defining aspect of design. BioWare's later release, Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid are examples of games designed around this narrative niche in the market, with some excellent gameplay mechanics to boot also. Enter The Matrix, on the other hand, was a game with fairly average gameplay that people bought just for the Matrix-related narrative. The classic example of Final Fantasy is also somewhere this holds true. While the core camplay has not changed too much over the past few years, the story is always something new, and this keeps their fanbase coming back for more.
Narrative has now become an equal, if not more important aspect of game design in some cases. Any development in the current market may want to consider the power of narrative if their gameplay ideas aren't so revolutionary.
The first game, on the other hand, presented a much more solid, Star Wars-based storyline with a similar feeling to the original movies. The villan was arguably more well developed than most of the villans in the sequel, the characters felt much more like Han Solos or Leia Organas than Disciples or Bao-dur (whatever he was). The twists in the first one were more thoroughly thought out than in the second.
It has been argued that narrative isn't that much of an important consideration in game development if the core gameplay is solid enough. This is the basis for my own favouritism of its gameplay. However, it would seem that the larger target market of the series found narrative far more important. As such, any sequel for the game would probably need to hone in on this narrative component.
This isn't the only game where narrative is a determining factor in a purchase or a defining aspect of design. BioWare's later release, Mass Effect and Metal Gear Solid are examples of games designed around this narrative niche in the market, with some excellent gameplay mechanics to boot also. Enter The Matrix, on the other hand, was a game with fairly average gameplay that people bought just for the Matrix-related narrative. The classic example of Final Fantasy is also somewhere this holds true. While the core camplay has not changed too much over the past few years, the story is always something new, and this keeps their fanbase coming back for more.
Narrative has now become an equal, if not more important aspect of game design in some cases. Any development in the current market may want to consider the power of narrative if their gameplay ideas aren't so revolutionary.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Welcome To Higher Gameplay
I'm Matt Clark, a third year IT student at QUT, and this is my games development journal. I'll routinely be updating this blog with some gameplay ideas that I have over the semester.
I've been noticing lately that the overwhelming trend in games is to stick to the tried and true. While the release of the Nintendo Wii brought some new innovation to the industry, developers have been fairly hesitant to try anything truly new. Currently, generic first person shooters, hack 'n slash and MMORPGs run rampant on the market as a means of delivering guaranteed revenue to their producers. While this business model may work for the moment, the reality is that once gamers grow completely weary of these titles (as is starting to happen now), the industry is crying out for some well needed innovation to save it from an early demise.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is something said in the fundamentals of games design lecture at uni, and that is that our brain constantly requires new stimuli to remain engaged. A point was made that gamers need to keep learning in order to have this requirement meant. It seems that the level of information and style of delivery is one of the most key components of what we call "gameplay". This idea needs to be considered for any future work in the industry to continue to cause growth.
I've been noticing lately that the overwhelming trend in games is to stick to the tried and true. While the release of the Nintendo Wii brought some new innovation to the industry, developers have been fairly hesitant to try anything truly new. Currently, generic first person shooters, hack 'n slash and MMORPGs run rampant on the market as a means of delivering guaranteed revenue to their producers. While this business model may work for the moment, the reality is that once gamers grow completely weary of these titles (as is starting to happen now), the industry is crying out for some well needed innovation to save it from an early demise.
One of the things I've been thinking about lately is something said in the fundamentals of games design lecture at uni, and that is that our brain constantly requires new stimuli to remain engaged. A point was made that gamers need to keep learning in order to have this requirement meant. It seems that the level of information and style of delivery is one of the most key components of what we call "gameplay". This idea needs to be considered for any future work in the industry to continue to cause growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
