|
|
|
Special Topics Game Making Old Topic Archive
Most Recent Topic - Single Player Pretend With online multiplayer games taking over, there is a fear of the single campaign gaming becoming extinct, or worse yet, just crummy. These fears are well justified as we see many production companies investing less into single player portions of their properties. I don’t have a great method to counteract this trend. However, I will say this. Ride this wave out. Eventually, they will come back to the single user. You’ll see. Eventually there will be a big push back into obtaining this market. That is what businesses do. They constantly try to find new ways to make money. Sometimes so much so that they forget the people they were serving. Then, those old people seem like a new area of marketability. In the mean time, let me make a suggestion. Play an MMO or an MMORPG or a social game or whatever. When you do this treat the other people not like real humans but like NPC’s (non-playing characters). You are in a play environment of pretend, why not go all the way use this time/game as a true fictional event. If you’re a dark elf, why have a sweet demeanor to your guild? Does that make much sense in a single player pursuit? Why not unleash your true imaginative self? You can enjoy your game more and feel more like the thing that is missing in modern gaming.(3/19/12) With digital distribution on fire, more and more publishers will not put out games in boxes and push them out to distributors and stores. There’s obviously trends out there that give the publishers reason to do this. We’ve all played Steam, or something the equivalent, including Flash sites. Steam is great, affordable and very convenient. However, this is not an article to proclaim the wonders of that which is Steam. Steam is invasive. In a way, it needs to be. It protects its game makers from piracy. The problem is that when you get invasive, it is hard to resist the pull of doing things that you know the customer won’t like. DRM, on a good day, grabs personal information. On a worse day, it’s easy for a company to use personal information for gain. It can obviously get darker than this. Even if you can find an upright company, you are always one VP firing or stakeholders meeting from toppling good business ethics. I think the biggest thing that I miss from box abandonment is the loss of ownership. If you have DVDs, etc., it is a pretty easy thing to prove that you own it. With licensed music and games, sure you think you own it. It’s on your iPhone or on your PC. But let’s face it, you are one careless “I Accept” away on a license agreement from selling away those rights. I would be more than willing to accept a bet that in the future many intellectual properties will have expiration dates associated with them. After that, the files will disappear. Will we be able to go back to the box after that? You tell me. (8/27/11)
Gamers’ Bill of Rights (Stardock and Gas Powered Games)
The Gamers’ Bill of Responsibilities (PC Gamer)
The above are two separate Bills that I will be talking about in (at least) a three-part article. I’ll look at the each one individually in subsequent articles, but this time I want to talk about the Bills in totality. There are some oddities to these. First, the fact that two parties made two related Bills, and not necessarily in response to each other. It would have been better if one party made both. You should never ask of too much in a one way direction. After all, would you want to date someone who only wants something from you and doesn’t bring anything? If they don’t give to the situation, the relationship is doomed for failure. And this is a relationship. Gamers need games to play, and companies need gamers to buy their wares. So, if one of these parties goes in thinking only of what they can get out of the other, eventually neither party will prosper. That being said, a second oddity is who wrote both of these Bills. The author of the first Bill you would think would have been written by gamers, when indeed it is written by game makers. Some have argued that Stardock and GPG are making these laws according to the types of games they make. But, look at the wording. It only benefits the gamer. If that’s the case, so what? If you do something right what’s the point of emphasizing or highlighting your good actions. If GPG gets game of the year, would we cry foul on them pointing that out? The second Bill was actually made by a magazine whose history ahs been in support of the gamer. However, in current circumstances, PC Gamer is starting to become the industry’s lap dog. In a day where print media is being reduced, we see now that survival for magazines is no longer bound majorly on the satisfaction of the reader. The advertiser has become a better and more stable paycheck. In fact one might argue that perhaps one or both of the parties in the gamer/game magazine maker may have gotten too selfish. And hence, the relationship now is on the rocks with the possibility of a break-up. (1/8/10) Gamers’ Bills of Rights and Responsibilities (pt.2) Gamers’ Bill of Rights (Stardock and Gas Powered Games)
The Gamers’ Bill of Responsibilities (PC Gamer)
As the second part of this article, we’ll look at only the Gamers’ Bill of Rights. At first glance, it seems pretty reasonable and very beneficial to the gamer. I particularly like the first one. Software companies (not just in gaming) having been getting off too easy on their overly stringent return policies. Opening a box means buying? Even if the contents don’t work? I know they put the blame on piracy, but they should have worked out a better solution to this problem by now. This policy has hurt the software industry, too. This is one of the reasons that CompUSA went down the tubes. I stopped buying from their store because I have 10 days and no “opens” in order to return. Forget gift buying there. If people feel confident that they won’t get burnt on a sale, they are more willing to buy. Number 6 on the list is one of the key drivers to this Bill. Anyone remember Starforce? Most companies don’t do sleazy practices, but many don’t seem bound by any code of ethics either on the company side or by governmental laws. The internet itself has made things very sticky as 7 - 9 imply. When playing a game, it is easy to get so engrossed that you don’t notice your modem flickering out of control (and that’s not when you are doing an MMO.) Many things can be downloading from your computer, not necessarily illicit, but like buying habits, web pages visited and other things invasion of privacy issues that you actually are paying for if you buy some of these games. That’s a severe breach of conduct on my part. And yet, it is usually the consumer who is treated as the pirate. The last item is the only thing that I think I disagree with. A little burden on the consumer to reduce piracy is fine by me. I’ve never had issue with locking up one of my CD/DVD drives. I don’t want game makers to lose money because of the disk share practices of teens. Overall I find this to be a good piece, and a very magnanimous for two video game companies to make. The only exploiting point of this Bill is that it benefits downloadable games over in-the-box games. The trend is already that way, but there will always be a market for the latter, usually by the more mature (ok, older) buyers like myself who fully understand the headaches the internet brings. If you disagree with that, wait ten years and see if you don’t fall into that category. (1/29/09) Gamers’ Bills of Rights and Responsibilities (pt.3) Gamers’ Bill of Rights (Stardock and Gas Powered Games)
The Gamers’ Bill of Responsibilities (PC Gamer)
As I hinted to in my first article, I thought that the Gamers’ Bill of Responsibilities was a good follow up to the first Bill. However, I was a tad disappointed that PC Gamer was its origin. It’s not just because it would have been good to have both Bills under one organization that represents gamers, but also because PC Gamer lately has seemed to be cozying up to industry. The five line items aren’t necessarily over the top, but they are like a slanted table. If you walk around the room enough, everything shimmies to one end of the table. Items 2 and 5 seem to be good by themselves, but they and the rest seem to portray the video game in a certain negative light. I don’t remember a lot of hysteria in gaming. Have I missed a riot or something? Yet, they picked that word on purpose. There’s no reason to see gamers as naturally over emotional or even high maintenance. They’re not. Don’t let the minority speak for the majority. I do believe that no one should pirate anything for any reason. I’m old school that way. It sounds like a statement that is too authoritarian, but you can’t hold industry to a higher ethical stance if you don’t hold yourself to it. This combined with #3 can be useful tools to keep industry honest and fair to the gamer. Those two items would also keep game prices of relatively affordable. Less piracy means more money to publisher and developers, which in turns allows for more full time talent with more stable companies. Once they have stability, and they know people won’t buy their games if they have some intrusive background app, per se, you’ll get good games for the right price. Looking at the list as a whole, there might be room for more responsibilities. How about not buying software from countries that have no desire to obey these responsibilities? A lot of these responsibilities are already done by most (a majority of) individual game players. Infractions of this Bill are usually done on a much larger scale by groups, even companies and sometimes by the aforementioned countries. So, let’s not make the gamers out to be something they’re not, but still hold onto the ethics that are implied by the Bill. And while we are at it, let’s apply it to more than just gamers. (2/13/10)
I’m mildly irritated with today’s view of the RPG. RPG stands for Role Playing Game, which at first sounds like every game since you play a role in every game, pretty much. However, just like there is drama in every movie, not all movies are dramas. RPG’s are, at the core, games where players can express themselves through their avatar/character. Unfortunately, usually in most modern attempts this means stats adjustments. So, you have the choice of how much strength, dexterity, mana, etc., your character plays with. This is a good start, but that is all you get. What gets me riled is the modern thought that this is enough. It’s not. In fact, this is not even necessary for an RPG. Decision making, plot affectation, choosing parts of the game to engage are more important to personal expression than stat building. With the prevalence of shooters and action games, RPG’s have been reduced to games that are essentially some other genre with an RPG element slapped onto the package. I’ve even seen reviewers call some of these games the future of RPG’s or revolutionary. They are indeed not. Not because the trend tells otherwise, but because they are not RPG’s. They are hybrid games, and hybrid games have been around for some time. They are not revolutionary or futuristic. They are part of the past. I wish publishers would keep their minds off of their wallets for a while, and focus not on the latest graphics technology, or how to make their game multiplayer for the masses, or whatever gives a great “Wow!” when released only to tire shortly afterwards, and focus on the elements of what makes an RPG game. It may not be as lucrative, but a good RPG is hard to beat and people remain loyal to those franchises. What’s wrong with making a consistent smaller lump of money? (2/19/09)
As I was writing my last RPG piece, I realized that I may have been too harsh on modern games. Then, after I realized that I wasn’t, I still decided to at least say something nice. RPG’s are a tricky thing. To try to fit them into one house, so to speak, would be a hard thing. And, it would ultimately box them into a place which would severely limit the genre’s natural creativity. It’s also hard to force modern RPGs to the 90’s measuring stick. Games today spend much time and dollars on art and getting a game engine to work in real time. Old graphics and old style mechanics wouldn’t be super competitive in today’s environment (although Spiderweb does fine.) There naturally has to be a compromise to satisfy today’s consumer and make an in depth game. One point of last article was to not throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, that doesn’t mean we can’t have multiple and varied types of RPGs, not just in setting but in type. RPG’s have enough breadth that they can afford subcategories. To focus more on economy or sub-quests or alternate endings or etc. is great. I just think that there should be a bouncer at that door to keep the wannabes and falsely self-proclaimed (RPG’s) out. (3/12/10)
The writing is on the wall for Flash. It looks like it is now just a matter of time before its demise. No, there is not a piece of software out there looming and poised, ready to pounce like Flash did to Director. Instead, it is the fact that Flash has fixed its issues in a less than robust way. Flash CS4 has some great new parts to it which you would think that would ensure its future, but what type? What gives me this opinion is the creation of a third tween in Flash. In the CS3 edition, Flash had motion and shape tweens that weren’t always true to their names. They were used according to what object(s) was used in the active layer. Now, they’ve added a third “Classic Tween.” (This is a misnomer. They actually have moved the old motion tween to classic status and created a new “motion” tween.) The third tween actually is nice. It fixes some issues that first two could not. The problem is how they solved their issues. They added on another tween in order to fix a flaw. What if they find 17 more problems, or want to deal with 17 more issues? Does Adobe make 20 tweens? Then it is up to the user to surf through all the tweens to make things work. This won’t work. It’s a bad method of doing things. If you get a 3D package, do you even have a set of tweens to pick from? Most have one way that you can modify on an editor, and don’t even have you set up a tween. This tween problem, plus the fact that Flash still uses a layer system that is a holdover from Graphic Design Packages like PhotoShop , makes me think that this is the beginning of the end. Now, Adobe has such a stronghold that Flash may be just re-invented. There may be a new package called Flash. However, with Adobe’s treading into 3D, they may awake the Autodesk giant who in return may tread into 2D. As someone with computational geometry experience, it is a lot easier to go to 2D than it is to go to 3D. That doesn’t account for the multimedia accessibility of the .swf file, but Adobe best have their ducks in a row if they want to expand their frontiers. (1/15/10) When I wrote earlier about the end of Flash, I did it somewhat tongue-in-cheek. My point was that Flash had to change what it had become in order to have future value. Otherwise, something new would take its place. To be honest, I thought that Adobe would eventually do a re-haul and Flash would survive. Now, what I said may be even truer than I tried to bark and bite with. As many have heard, Flash will not be supported by the iPhone. Apple really laid into Adobes’ sloppy coding and buggy outputs. They (Apple) prefer to put their money on HTML. I hate to say it by I agree (with the sloppy coding comment.) Adobe has been, for too long, adding to haphazardly to their somewhat flawed software. To me, it’s like building a house. If your house isn’t perfect, you can just add to it. You can just slap bricks on to the old parts of the house. It might work, but ultimately this isn’t the way to remodel. You actually have to break down some walls, plumbing, etc. Adobe hasn’t done this, because let’s face it, it’s easier to create a patch or add an extra feature. Better to do that than go into the old code, try to understand it all, and gut it out. Modern programming is so touchy, most of us fear and tremble at the aspect. A part of me doesn’t blame them. That is the part of me that doesn’t notice how much money Adobe makes or charges for its products in their pseudo-monopoly. That’s not to say that Adobe is the only guilty party. Microsoft has been charged with this crime for multiple years (and products) now. It is just a culmination of being a big company with many employees who have to all try to communicate in order to get out one product. I hope this wake-up call makes Flash into a better product. However, usually big companies laugh this action off, preferring to play a game of chicken. Or, they might throw a small bone to try to appease the iPhone and then go back to “doing what they do.” We’ll see. (3/5/10)
Champion Online has given the gift that keeps on giving. You can get a lifetime subscription for $199. That’s not too bad considering the monthly price of online games today. It will be interesting to see if this model works and is followed. The bad news is that this price and all of their prices are so far buried on their site, most won’t notice it. You even have to register before you can even see a price. That’s a little shady in my book. If you won’t tell people a price up front, what does that say about your integrity? But, before I get on one of my usual rants, I do want to commend this action. It gives the player, especially loyal players, a break. It also may allow companies to store up money for future development. Most costs of a game are up front, and this would be a good way to recoup or flat out pay for needed materials. The backlash might be that you end up with a community of almost solely lifetime subscribers. What do you do then? Well, my guess is that some companies would just cut the cord. Then again, the situation might not be the worst thing either. You could hand it over to the user community and let them run it while you just put a little advertising in to keep up the servers. It could also act a springboard for a Champions II. There are lots of possibilities and ones where both parties win. (1/22/10)
I remember the first time I played Madden on a PC. My thoughts were roughly, “Is this it?” and “I don’t get what is so great about this game?” There were no good answers to these questions because the questions were unfair. The better question should have been, “Why didn’t EA want to make this work on a PC?” This question, although seemingly picking on EA (which we do here sometimes), is actually an honest one that has a broader scope today. Madden didn’t work well for me because I was playing on a PC. Madden was not meant to be played on a PC. When forced into that format, the keyboard was just not a good fit as a controller. So, why isn’t a keyboard as good as a video game controller? <Console players add rant here.> This is an excellent question. For years, consoles have done well with shooters that have done equally on the PC, both in enjoyment level and play-ability. There doesn’t seem to be a reason why this can’t be for sports games as well. The problem is that you don’t see sports games come over to the PC nearly enough any more. The problem might actually start around EA. EA’s bread and butter is the console. So, if they don’t work hard at PC’s, that’s only because there is little return (direct sales) for their efforts. The problem becomes when one person (or in this case publisher) does it, everyone follows. Many companies could easily make a good sports game but they don’t see the market for it. That’s a shame because there is. The problem is that the market needs to be cultivated. It’s died down because publishers have left, and not because no one was interested on the PC side. Now, it is more likely for a PC gamer to go and buy an XBOX to play a sports game, than to find them asking a publisher when’s the next NHL game coming out. I’m sure PC gamers in general have dwindled due to this trend. Unfortunately, no one really wants to put the first bucks into cultivating. You may put some in, make little to no return, only to have a competitor swoop in for the cash when you finally build the thirst back up. I wish someone would do the grass roots thing and try anyway. There is always the flip side where you become the dynasty before anyone has a chance to challenge. I’m sure a lot of closet PC gamers would agree. (2/5/10) I want to talk about curves. Nothing too dirty, but I’ve heard complaints about NURBS and Bezier curves, lately. I’ve heard things like we should ditch them for a more modern alternative. Unfortunately, there is none at the present. So, it is pretty much wishful thinking. Here’s the problem. NURBS aren’t the problem, the application of them are. We still don’t fully understand how to use them in graphics. Part of the problem is the artists. Let’s face it, many artists don’t have Math degrees. To use them properly, is like using a home ultrasound machine. Sure, we could use it, but we have no idea what the Physics might be behind it, and in fact, we don’t know what is truly safe and not. Moreover, in gaming, we usually reduce everything down to a polygon. That means that we take a curve and make on non-curve out of it. Straight edges. That’s it. What I would suggest, is that we stop using polygons. I think that a bunch of people just gave me a strange look or a phalanges expression. Yes, I stand by it. We can do it. We’ve gotten all that we can out of a polygon, and we should be thankful. It’s served us well in its simplicity and usefulness. Unfortunately, we’ve hit a wall with it. There’s not much to do with it now except put more of them in our models. Plus, I’m tired of cornered human faces, etc. So, what’s the alternative? Higher order elements. Yes, elements that look like the curves that they are built from. They are more computationally expensive. However, you need less of them to represent a body, object, whatever. There is a little, okay medium, amount of fore-work to do on them to make them viable in graphics packages but the output will be worth it. Then the artist will get less of the unexpected results that have had us all pound our keyboards. Do you think that this is too much? You are wrong, sir. Or madam. Look at the game Ecstatica II. It has already used a form of higher elements. A little dated, yes, but it worked well. And when was it made – 1997! I rest my case. Now get to work. (2/26/10)
Although I’ve stepped off my old adage that you can measure a game’s enjoyment level by the size of its manual, I still think there is something missing in games that try to forgo or reduce in size their game manuals. I know there are some changes that make things quicker or more enjoyable. Tutorials let you play in a real game setting so that you can understand first hand what to do. However, when was the last time you replayed a tutorial to remember how to control something? Some games have the instructions built into the in-game notes section. Yet, I have yet to see this done well and easy to look up. Some developers just strip down what you can do into the game into five easy pushed buttons. But after playing a game for 5, 10, 15 hours, how much fun is 5 buttons going to get you? Game makers like the idea of no manuals because it’s much cheaper to have a small or no manual to put in with the packaging. Heck, let the consumer download everything. As you might guess, I’m not on board with this idea. It would be much cheaper to send out a half made game, too, but you don’t do that. In fact, publishers will make games that have stripped out a graphics engine and replaced it with another for the tune of millions in overall accrued cost, but cutting corners on manuals is no big deal. Not to sound totally old (which is now probably out of the realm of possibility) but I don’t even like the .pdf manuals that you get on disk. There is nearly nothing worse in gaming than having to alt-tab out of a game or even stop a game just so that you can find the other disk that the manual resides on, to look up a keyboard shortcut. Now, I know manuals aren’t the best literature to read. I find them boring myself. However, you get tips, background story and list of other things at you fingertips while playing the game. There is a great feeling of looking something up in a manual after your first 10 hours of gameplay to find a nugget of information that will help renew the game for you. It’s a great way to get the fullness of the game that the original developer meant the game to be. (3/19/10)
Linearity in games is usually considered a bad thing in gaming. For the most part, I agree with this. However, (and you knew that was coming) it does have its place. Its place is based in emotion. When you have a wide, expansive, open world, that is great. Usually it’s a fun place to start when making a game. The other part that comes with the open world is that people can go anywhere and usually act in any way. So, if you want them to experience something in particular, you have to force them through uncooperative dialogue or other types of restrictions. To keep these restrictions forces a type of linearity in itself. The reason for this is to get the player to a hopefully better gaming experience. After all, if you want a player to become an outcast, fight back and then achieve redemption, how do you do this without restrictions or linearity? You pretty much just have to hope that the player will fall into this plot. That is why there is a place for linearity. It can bring you to a plot point or a strong emotion through a narrative that might end up being missed in a do-anything environment. Generally, when one can go anywhere and do anything, the plot and emotions from that plot can be dulled down. (Note: that doesn’t mean the end of good gaming, per se.) The problem comes from the fact that most game makers choose linearity for reasons other than those listed above. It can be chosen due to ease of making the game, not having any bugs pop up, avoiding dialogue mistakes or repetition, and so on. If you choose linearity for those reasons only, my guess is that your game better have pretty good graphics. In some cases you may have to make the game that way. Small developers with small publishers may have no choice. If that is you, don’t just go with it. Instead, try to infect your game with all of the up-sides of linearity. (3/25/10)
When will it end? You know, the games that have the excellent explosions, mega-polygons, super renderers that need special cards to work on your machine or console. You know, Crysis. Each year we see more and more realism in games. Some tricks might be done with smoke (blurs) and mirrors (light over exposure), but some of it just comes from great artists, great software and great techniques on great computers. If you have a great graphics card, you can get movie-like quality in your animations and gameplay. I’ve even seen people get fooled by games thinking they are real movie clips (from a distance.) But, when will it end? I know at this point, many may not think it ever will but history indicates otherwise. In art, we saw the Renaissance, build into Baroque and possibly ebb into Romanticism. Then it all crashed. Sure we saw good art since, but new artists heavily favor creativity over craftsmanship. Now, the art movement took centuries to go through, but things move faster now. Look at music. In the 60’s, guitar players were displayed and came into prominence. The 70’s showed the next step having faster, more experienced players take the stage. The 80’s went all out with speed demons cranking on their axes. The 90’s displayed a counter culture to the guitar movement. Why? Most likely, because it was too hard to get to the top. It took too much effort and breaking new ground was frustratingly hard to do. So, when we look at today’s games, we might soon see the same thing. If someone has to string 16 CPU’s and 4 video cards to squeeze another ounce of graphics goodness, they might think about doing something different. I’ve already seen the ugly, dirtier looking indie games. They are on the horizon, ready to ease the burdens of the tired, overtimed game employees. Will it happen? Maybe … almost definitely to some degree. Two parties are in ultimate control: 1) the consumers, who may not fork over money to anything but high end games. 2) the gaming community, if they band together and force a standard. We’ll see. (4/9/10)
I’ve read some similar thoughts by multiple, varied sources about the need for modernizing of today’s games. For the most part, the arguments stemmed around the fact that the old computers just couldn’t run the games of today. Therefore, past developers were forced to make adjustments (and what not) in order to ultimately water down their game. I don’t find this as a good argument to hyper-realize games today, or to make everything feel real time. I think that modernizing in this way is highly genre dependent. I often have a student give me a nice discourse on why turn based strategies (TBS) are stupid. While there have been modernizations to the TBS process, it isn’t always an improvement to the game play of these games. I would be quick to point out that Las Vegas (not any particular video game sequel, but the actual place) is turn based. Very few gambling games in Vegas are shooter-like or similar to real-time action video game play. And lets’ face it, Vegas does pretty well. The reason being is that TBS games have one great thing that Action games can’t fully reproduce: anticipation. There is no more exciting feeling to me than seeing a protagonist’s uber-strong force approach one of my cities. They are two turns away, and I’m fretting to make more units and calling units back to the city. Why? Because I have no idea if I’ll be able to withstand the attack. There’s something to be said for that. On the other hand, real time action games did need to be modernized. Ever try re-playing a game from years’ past? Not quite as fun as you remember, huh? For you young people, try an action game from 1996. How do you like that one texture stretched (or checker-boarded) to its one-poly limit? In order to get more out of the game, developers needed to make people feel like they were in the game and the tensions that come from being in that environment. It brings out great eustress (yes, it’s a word) Modern computers do improve games, but not all games. Action and FPS games needed the modern computer to become fully realized. RPG’s and TBS’s could easily be made enjoyable on a 10 year old computer. Okay, maybe 7-year old computer … in some cases.
What is the right length for a game? What is the right length for a game? What is the right length for a single player game? It’s probably genre specific. After all, would you want to play 50 hours of solitaire? Of course many an office worker has done that. I guess I’ll have to take that statement back. I find it interesting that the game times have gone up and down in an attempt to get the right stuff. Usually, outside factors drive this. Usually, it is not done right, trying to conform to some rule. It might be better to do it per game. After all, if you are making a terrible game, tearing the rip cord might be a good option. Although, that would take some self awareness on the part of the developer. It seems like when a game is terrible, the maker’s subconscious takes over, and they add useless repetitive hours to it, hoping that quality beats quantity. There can be market issues, too. I know one of the higher-ups at a well known developer who told me once that they don’t make their games with more than 10 hours of game play. The reason for this is due that multiplayer garnishes most of the money so why put all that money into something that won’t reward you. Even good games can get it wrong sometimes. I know most people won’t agree with me on this one, but Diablo II was too long. A great game sure, but after a while it kind of dragged. I tried playing it a second time around, and stopped on the very first quest. I played the first Diablo 3 times, at least. Why? Well it had random quests for one, but I also think it didn’t have enough time to get boring and/or repetitive. I guess that it is good to put 10 hours of single player into the content. Otherwise, people might feel ripped off. Although, placing more than 50 hours into it means that most, if not all will not replay it. If we split it down the middle, 30 sounds like the average for this answer. So, what do you think? What is the right length for a game?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a wonderful thing that has really helped games break through in recent years (thanks to computers that are powerful enough to run sophisticated algorithms.) However, when does good AI turn into unreal or annoying? I ask the slanted question because I have played games where I have set to snipe on someone 100 yards away only for their spider-sense make them instantaneously turn around and start firing at me. Is this good AI? I guess it makes the game challenging, but in reality, I’d shoot the first guy before anyone knew what was happening. Likewise, some RTS games become so hard at the end, you need to take a Mavis Beacon typing class to be able to compete. Hence, strategy goes out the window in exchange for control. Now, I obviously am not talking about in depth AI. I’m referring to simple AI methods highly imposed. People may counter by saying, “I hate games where you can get 15 feet from someone and they don’t even see you.” Guess what? In real life you can do that, too. In fact, a little bit of slack AI tends to push strategy and gameplay. I know we’ve all played a game where the monster or lead boss is all but invincible. What do most of us do in that situation? Well, there’s the run-and-shoot(/hit) method. If that doesn’t work, try finding a place that the AI glitches on, like a corner or crack. Then, try to unload what you got from here. Is that fun? Not necessarily. You’ve made a great AI only to sacrifice fun. So turn down the AI dial on the fighting once in a while. You can always turn it up in another part of the game. (8/28/10)
You might be asking what that word means. To be honest, a few years back or so, I would have thought some one made it up. It basically means that something is trying to depict reality. So, why doesn’t anybody just say that? I have no idea. I guess we all want to sound smart once in a while. Well, I’m already off topic. The reason that I have introduced this word is that some games really go for it, and others don’t worry about it so much. All games try to be realistic to some degree, but some opt of reality to pursue funativity. Yes, that word is semi-real, too. Or it has been at least been used. One of my students actually used it often. I tried to fail him, but he managed to escape. Anyway, the games that go for verisimilitude are war games and sports. They do it in roughly different ways. Sports will try to make the agents/sprites look exactly like the athletes and even move like them using motion capture. War games will focus more on the objects, like the look and play of each gun, tank, etc. Even military strategy may be pushed into the AI. To their credit, both groups of games have pushed the money envelope grossing obscene amounts of cash. They may have pushed their popularity past where it would have normally been, especially amongst consoles. The bad news is that these games have turned people like me off. I could care less if a pistol side loads. I just want it to shoot when I am in the fire fight. It might be neat if it acts differently from other weapons, but I don’t need true historical accuracy. I also don’t have a strong desire to see an accurately depicted Kobe Bryant blocking a shot. I’m more about mastering the challenges of the game. Now, I don’t think that I’m too important to most of the game publishers and developers. After all, my guess is that I represent a small part of the market share. The warning to all is that be wary about going verisimilitude. After all, I may not represent well in the war and sports arena, but my guess is that my numbers are much larger in other game genres. Let reality take a second or third seat when making games like RPG or RTS or Adventure games. The followers of these games will allow for more mistakes in the verisimilitude arena, but aren’t so forgiving with the other elements (See, I had to drop that word one more time.) (9/10/10)
There is the consistent thought by many a publisher that it would be best to get rid of the traditional business model and switch to the Hollywood way of doing things. By this, I mean that instead of hiring people as long term employees, you hire them essentially as contractors. I’ve noticed the term permalancer seems to be popping up more and more. This is merely the word that means permanent freelancer. My guess this means that there is already a lean towards the model. Analyst Alex Seropian is quoted as saying that this Hollywood model would save businesses 35%. If it’s taking you 10 million dollars to make a game, that means you get to save 3.5 million. It would be hard for major companies to turn their proverbial backs on trying out the model to get that kind of money. Seropian may be right … in the short term. The problem is that when people see you saving money, they want a piece of it. Pretty soon after going to the Hollywood model, essential personnel will say, “Hey, you’re saving 35%, I should get at least 5% of that cash because you need me.” After 30 people do this, that 35% is gone, and companies will be right back where they were. Just look at Hollywood itself. If it takes $100 million to make a movie, you probably are paying 5 actors or less a total of $20 million. And guess what? Many movies lose money. You end up in a bad situation with people making much money in a product that overall loses money. The unfairness of have’s and have not’s system is palpable. Speaking to my students, present and past, and to those who are starting a company, don’t go with the Hollywood model if you expect long term gain and stability. It might appear attractive but the only reason that it ever works in any situation is because there is a lot of money available. Most places don’t have the money inflow to hire and fire freelancers, while maintaining the expectation to have available, talented workers at the ready. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t hire freelancers. Sometimes, that is the only way to make money upon start-up. However, if you want loyalty and steady growth, you have to give your people hope of a future. (11/28/10)
This week’s topic really came about when I was watching a series of Commentaries for a TV show that I liked. I realized that it also applied to game commentaries and “The Making of …” videos that are distributed by the Publisher or Developer. I don’t mention the TV show because it made a bunch of boring comments that pretty much are the sins of all commentaries. So, to hopefully help these people out, I’ve created a short list of rules to follow if you are planning on making anything like this:
Many popular game developers will talk about how they streamlined their game or made there GUI’s more user friendly. The goal was to get more people to play and enjoy their respective games. Many times they are successful in this. It’s not a far leap to say that simplifying a game makes it better. Not so fast. Look back to the actual goal: to get more people to play. This would have to be synonymous with good. But, is it? I would say not. Making a GUI less frustrating definitely gets me to like a game. However, it is not a true positive. It is really a non-negative. You’ve removed a mistake. Have you actually put something better in your game? The problem is that many people in the gaming industry see this as a true law of gaming. Simplification = better product. Of course, this is silly. Just because someone can’t quickly understand something, doesn’t mean it’s worse than the easily understood. The problem is that most gamers aren’t willing to invest the time to learn something new, preferring to go with variations on the old controls, motifs and objectives. I know everybody’s whipping boy is Farmville now, but I can’t help but bring it up. It is the largest game out there as we speak. How hard is it? Not very. Mom’s and people who usually don’t get into games play it. One of the reasons that it is successful is that it is easily accessible. No one fears reading its manual or worry about mastering any controls or GUI’s. That doesn’t make it a good game, only popular. That’s also true for most anything in society. Pop music tends to be very simple and not very well crafted music. The reason that these teen bands (in particular) do well has nothing to do with their talent, which often tends to be mediocre. The reason is that, again, it takes very little effort to get into this music. Games are the same way. The most popular don’t tend to be the most well crafted, or most rewarding. The great games unfortunately have to wear banners and tags of average or unexplored merely because people don’t want to spend the time and effort to get the most out of them. It’s a shame. It is a greater shame that our industry is falling for this modern motto of simplicity. (1/7/11)
The Struggle between Innovation and Intuitivism Many games want to break the mold. Many games want to have new and exciting gameplay features. Many games want to do something different from the last big game or game style. Most don’t. The problem with innovation in gaming is the modern gamer. Sure, we want to play the new and the cool. We don’t want something old and stale. What are we willing to do for it? Read a manual? Most won’t. The modern gamer gets so excited for a game they want to be playing it 5 minutes after installing it. They don’t want to learn about a new and exciting interface and controls. That would put playing said fun game off for hours. Plus, we’d be bad at it for a long time until we have mastered the new interface. Publishers and developers both know this, at least subconsciously, and hence always go back to the same basic controls, same simple UI’s, same essential rule sets. They instead forgo this type of innovation, and instead attempt creative output in usually the more artistic or explore one eye catching difference to the same old gameplay. If I can morph your hand into an axe, a slice will still require the same button push as a punch. You don’t have to even change your damage model. In some ways, as a game maker, it is a little depressing. We have a very simple game on this site called Singularity Bomb. Most people don’t get it because they refuse to read 2 ½ paragraphs worth of instructions. They instead think that it is a lame form of Space Invaders. I’m not saying that Singularity Bomb is terribly innovative or a great game. It’s there just for a kick. However, why would a developer make a great advanced game when people won’t even bother learning simple wrinkles in game functions that lay them outside the realm of Halo or WOW. No, it is much easier and more lucrative to play it safe. Make a game that is roughly the same as all else with something that just appears to be different. If you are still reading at this point, my guess is that you aren’t one of the crowd. You probably want more and are willing to the prep work. As part of the gaming community, I apologize. We’ll try to do better starting with this company. (1/15/11)
New is great. No, wait, I take that back. It is new. It doesn’t guarantee that it is good. It is new. It doesn’t mean that it is better that it is previous things. It is new. It doesn’t mean that everything before it was stupid and outdated or worthless. It is new. That is all that it is. I wish we would get over the idea that “change”, “cutting edge”, “new” and “pushing the envelope” are words that are equal to good. They are just forms of saying the word “different.” When you try to different, guess what? Sometimes you fall on your face. In fact, sometimes when you push the envelope, you really are in an undefined genre that isn’t all that creative. It’s just a semi-change on an old concept or maybe a wild attempt at trying to be different. However, you still are a genre. The powers that be just don’t want to label you yet. I’ve seen it in art, comedy, and even education. The desire to do something new and make a mark is strong. It causes people to get notoriety sometimes. Sometimes it results in a great, great piece of work. People who view it are affected and enjoy it immensely. These are the success stories. They are also the minority. Most people who try to cut the endge keep doing this until it eventually becomes a crutch to do mediocre work. It’s hard doing something well in an area where someone else has done excellent work. It’s easier to show your creativity, not your skill, because skill takes time, and usually a lot of it. Don’t let this be you. Do something great, not necessarily revolutionary. Don’t worry. When you finally make things consistently great, creativity pours out of you as a consequence. I’ve seen it happen more times than you would think. You end up making something extremely revolutionary and groundbreaking in a way that all can appreciate. Who knew? (6/10/11)
I’ve heard a lot about the perfect game. The arguments revolve around perfect immersion, playing as yourself, endless choices, virtual reality to the extreme, etc. It’s all pie in the sky stuff that is almost impossible to do, even if we had the machines to do it. I think there is a holy grail that game designers and gamers alike believe exists. It doesn’t. Games are just too complicated to make a Mona Lisa or Beethoven’s Fifth. Moreover, if we could create this masterpiece, would it satisfy everyone? Of course not. We all have our favorite genre. To take it further, we all have our most hated genre. Some may not even pick out this piece of perfection out of the bargain bin. Those who aren’t too into the genre of this uber-slobber-knocker may be nonplussed by it. So, sit back enjoy the game you’re playing. Or better yet, grab one of your old games that you loved, and relive its greatness. There are plenty of superb games that aren’t perfect. (1/22/11)
Sandbox games always sound great. Then, you play them. It’s not their fault. It’s just that they bring out the uncertainty that everyone. “I want this. No, maybe that. Oh, if I can only have part of this and part of that. No wait, that would totally be a nightmare.” Sandbox games are best played by the meandering spirit. People who like to dabble but not get too involved. The rest of us want to a little bit of order, so we can rage against it. If we have a bad guy to fight, it’s a lot better than hoping somebody on the multiplayer front becomes a jerk so that we can get angry at him or her. We want some rules so that we can mete a challenge, not make a real interesting soup without a recipe. If not, we end up with the old conversation every teenager has with their friend, “What do you want to do?” “I don’t know what do you want to do?” And so it goes. (1/28/11)
Starcraft II and Real Time Strategies I have heard very bipolar opinions about Starcraft II. I would expect this from any long anticipated and well financed video game. However, hearing certain specifics of what was not liked, brought up a very interesting aspect of modern gaming and RTS’s. Many of the negatives revolved around thoughts like “Why did it take so long to make this?” or “Its graphics look a bit better but dated. There doesn’t appear to be anything new about it.” I’ve talked before about what art means to each genre, and Starcraft II (SC2) demonstrates some of my past thoughts well. One of the reason that SC2 doesn’t appear that fresh and new is that it can’t amaze you graphically. Is it better graphically? Yes, but let’s look at the difference. The old SC was a 2D game but most of the imagery was 3D. Blizzard would make 3D models and then convert them to 2D in order to make them work with their engine. Does their fully 3D SC2 make for better graphics? Surely. They could even expend more memory and clock speed on porting better models as well. However, there is one thing missing. How are we viewing this? Our perspective is very zoomed out. This isn’t a FPS where things can get right in your face. Here, everything gets a little blurred out due to the apparent distance that you are viewing it from. Can you see a mole on a person’s face from 500 feet away? Likewise, the graphics that are superior in SC2 are reduced in effect. Thus, this gives an appearance of a small step in terms of advancement from the original SC. Gameplay is another topic … perhaps for another time. (5/27/11)
In the last few years or so, there have been many who have pointed out the demise of Real Time Strategy. Most of the time the articles speak to weaknesses, and what needs to be done to break down the walls to usher in the next big era for RTS. First off, RTS games are not in as much trouble as you’d think. The industry has just grown so fast, that strategy games in general have not grown as fast as other genres. The second issue comes from the fact that RTS games no longer have novelty. When developers and publishers could put out strategy games that didn’t involve turn based movement, people were intrigued. It was a fun and fresh way to play games. A lot of people got hooked. However, novelty only lasts for so long, and only happens once. That time is over for RTS games. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that RTS games are bad or lost a step. It just means they have officially taken their true place the gaming spectrum. Just like puzzle games, adventure games and platformers, they will not be as anticipated as much as the hot Shooters or sell as much as the latest casual/social game. Nonetheless, they will still have loyal players, a larger than a niche level of play and certainly can still make a lot of money. (6/24/11)
What’s important in a game is a curious thing. Most people would agree that gameplay is paramount, but when you read a review or hear someone get excited about a great game, these people digress into other topics quickly. Sometimes they don’t even address any play. Usually the graphics get the credit. That’s nice but why do we evaluate so many genres with the same measuring stick. Placing graphics and other sticks to RPGs, FPS, TBS, RTS and action, to name a few acronyms, end up giving us similar testing procedures. However, they are different types of games. One test does not fit all. Another good question is why we let some games off the hook for weaknesses. Almost every genre has NPCs now. They are important part of the gaming experiences, but an FPS would never be held accountable for them. On the other hand, if a RTS doesn’t have a multiplayer, it usually gets a downgrade. Maybe the developers didn’t want a multiplayer component. How is that game worse than a game like Left 4 Dead that has no single campaign? These are curious things … and more that I’ll talk about in the future. (7/2/11)
Casual games are not my favorite thing. Sometimes, I can be a little too hard on them. Nonetheless, I find something a little disturbing about them. The games themselves are successful and many like them. I certainly don’t fault them for that. However, the games don’t seem to try to be fun excursions into escapism. They instead appear to try to be addictive with hooks to keep people playing. As a person who wasted many a night on Everquest, I understand this. You want to sell your product, and you want to make money. There is no shame in this, but casual game makers take this too far. The addiction seems to be what they are trying to make, not a game. Even when one of the people from industry gives a talk they tend not to talk about anything gaming. Well, other than how great their game is. Their speeches instead revolve around business success, popularity or getting people engaged in a product. Is this just me? (7/8/11)
New games appear to go out of their way to challenge players is only certain ways. They also appear to have thrown out some of the old ways. Today’s players may be challenged in the physical or in strategy. That is fine. However, some of the smaller ways have been discarded as novelty or old school. In particular, economy has really gone down hill. This used to be one of the bread and butter pieces of the RPG world. It even spilled into other genres as well. Now, most games have at least a re-spawn area so that you can always waste more time and make millions of copper. That’s a shame, since this is a great subplot or fringe dimension of strategy in a way that enhanced the experience is now gone. My guess for the reasoning was two-fold. The first is that it is hard to create an economy that will be balanced. They already have balancing issues when it comes to combat. The second is that neophyte players and spendthrifts in video games waste their money and end up losing an advantage at the end. Well, too bad. If my motor skills didn’t get better by the end of the game, my FPS won’t bail me out. Both of these reasons are lackluster to me. Go all the way in all dimensions if you are claiming to make a triple-A game. And, don’t go soft on the “economy challenged” in order to make a sandbox for everyone. You only weaken the experience for the rest of us. Nobody wants to play an easy game over the age of 13. Everyone wants a challenge. Make economy one of your challenges when creating a game, for the player and you as the maker. (7/22/11)I once had a student ask me where do you think the next great console will come from? After I corrected his grammar for ending a sentence in a preposition and thus exorcising myself from him ever seeing me as cool, I realized his questioned revolve around the opportunity for other hardware makers to emerge something that will compete with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft. As always, I twisted the answer a little. (Now I know why they hate me.) I said there already two existing. I was being sly, but it’s true. The two are Google and Apple. We tend to think of consoles in the traditional sense. They are these rectangular things that we place beside the TV. Then we plug things into it like cartridges or DVDs. In essence, a console is a stand alone game playing machine. When you think of the gTablet or the iPad, isn’t that essentially what they are? Sure they do other things, but doesn’t the Wii surf the net. You can load more than games onto your consoles now. The space between the two types (traditional console and tablets) is shrinking. If you can add a keyboard to an iPad, than why not a controller, output to a TV if desired, etc. There are plenty of good games to play on the tablets. They are only limited by disk space. That will change. With solid state hard drives being what they are, solid, full games will emerge on the tablets. Hence we will see a convergence. Then chaos, but that’s another topic … (7/29/11)
|
