The stylish side of game design.

So last week I picked up Guitar Hero 3 (well it was more for the guitar to tell the truth), for those not in the know Guitar Hero 3 is the first one in the series not created by the original designer Harmonix who have gone onto Rock Band. I've played the hell out of Guitar Hero 1 and 2 and upon starting up the game I could tell within seconds that this was not the same as those titles, something felt off. This feeling that something wasn't right got me thinking about the different styles we all have and how it applies to designing. We all have our own way of doing things, from being organized to what we're good with, so it goes without saying that this could also be applied to game design. Playing Guitar Hero 3 after playing Rock Band and previous Guitar Heroes you can just see the difference in style. Graphically Guitar Hero 3 looks last gen against Rock Band, and in terms of game play the note charts in Guitar Hero 3 feel very mechanical and designed to punish rather then entertain.



Moving away from Guitar Hero to the industry you can see these differences from the various gaming gods and expert design houses. Shigeru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima are friends and two legendary designers, and yet the games they design and challenges within couldn't be further apart. When you start playing a Mario game you can just feel the craftsmen like touch applied to the level design from Miyamoto, or the cinematic style of Kojima in the Metal Gear series. I believe that it is this style that defines some of the best games of our time and the designers behind them.



With the recent discussions about whether voice actors should receive royalties for their contributions to games, I'm all for people getting a bigger cut of the profits but to me voice actors are on the bottom of the totem pole for royalties. Creating a game requires the cooperation of everyone , from the designers to the artists and of course the programmers and they should be rewarded for their hard work above everyone else. Game designers ( or creative directors what ever the official title is) are really the celebrities of our industry, we all know who Sid Meier is, or Brian Reynolds and each one of these people put some of their style into the games they design. Imagine for a second if the next big budget Mario Game was created by Hideo Kojima without any involvement from Miyamoto and the next Metal Gear game was created by Miyamoto without any involvement from Kojima, do you think each game would be the same style as the previous ones in the series? I'm not asking if they would be good or bad, but I bet that something would feel different when playing them.



I bet that once I become a game designer at some point I would have my own style for my games, and that I hope it will be a welcome touch added to any games I get my hands on.



Josh

Bad asses need only apply.

After replaying one of my favorite action titles I've felt inspired to start writing up a game document for what I feel to be an excellent action game. For this entry I'm going to talk about what makes a good action title and what can make it into a button mashing mess(try saying that 10 times fast).



The action genre is one of the oldest genres and is about one thing, kicking ass and taking names although I don't think enemies have unique names. Story for most examples is kept on the side lines and the combat system takes center stage. To even start a discussion on action games we need to talk about the recent highs of the genre : God of War, Devil May Cry 3, God Hand, and Ninja Gaiden Black (or Sigma if you have a PS3).




God of War if I remember right was the first one released of the games I'm going to look at here. In it you play Kratos a painted bad ass with two blades chained to your arms and your set against just about every mythological beast ever mentioned. Combat is button mashing 101, combos are quick strings of buttons which result in limbs and blood flying all over the place. Of the games listed here the story and setting are the strongest. Some of the backdrops are pretty amazing to behold and the game does throw in a bit more puzzles then the usual action title. I rank GoW as the lowest as combat really does get repetitive and the game throws in very cheap fights for the player. To define "cheap fight" for this entry is a battle where the game mechanics are used against you to create difficulty instead of creating something to test the player's skills.



Some fights in GoW have you fighting against enemies that can constantly re spawn enemies an infinite number of times which forces you to attack the second combat starts or your screwed. other times the camera itself is zoomed out to the point that it's hard to gauge enemy attacks to block and counter them. Then we have the horrible protection levels that have you defending a weak person while every enemy in the area targets the person. Due to the nature of Krato's attacks you can't easily target multiple enemies and add in enemy spawning enemies makes life unbearable. Playing on the hardest difficulty of GoW is about being masochistic at best, enemies are given attacks that can kill you within a few blows, and those protection levels become an exercise in frustration.




Moving on we have Devil May Cry 3(haven't played 4 yet so I can't comment there), which has spawn many Internet debates on Dante(the protagonist) VS Kratos. In DMC3 combat is about high flying maneuvers and quick reactions. Dante can switch between 2 equip able weapons at will allowing you to create some amazing combos. The action is fast and enemies can quickly swarm around you. Combat while still button mashing requires you to learn the combos which are more about time delayed presses then button memorization to get through the game. Bosses become the focus of your frustration as they are challenging fights requiring mastery of the combat system to survive. DMC3 allows players to choose multiple styles for Dante that affect his combat potential, such as a close range mastery, gun mastery, acrobatics etc. The idea is sound but it does seem like handicapping the player to increase the already high level of challenge. Higher difficulty levels makes enemies more durable and hit harder, but the combat system is diverse enough to give players a fighting chance. The only downside in DMC 3 is the camera which makes fighting long range enemies frustrating as it stays off of them. I'll be going into discussion of the camera in action games later.




Now we have God Hand which is the game that inspired me to come up with an action game idea. If meaningful story is your reason for playing games, well... then you might want to skip God Hand. In it you play Gene who after getting his right arm cut off by demons gets the God Hand or the right arm of God and is now out to save us from these nasty demons who look more like those punks in Final Fight. Quoting an advertisement in a promo video "It's a ball bustingly hard game". Even the basic grunts will wail on you and kill you within seconds if you let them. Many enemies can grab and do nasty things to you that deplete your health bar fast. Actual demons can randomly spawn after a fight that will destroy you fast unless you play one (or both) of your trump cards which I'll get to in a minute. Boss fights are something else, you will fight 2 very homosexual stereotypes, a nymphomaniac, and perhaps the worse take on the power rangers yet.


So then why do I love God Hand? Because the combat system is simply fantastic. Instead of having preset combos, you can choose from numerous attacks and place them in your combo trees. The square button is just pushing square you activate, but you can put anything you want there from a backhand slap, leading to a roundhouse, kick leading to foot sweep and so on. This allows you to create your own style of combat which you'll need to survive.




The difficulty is something else as well, you have levels 1 ,2 ,3 and DIE. As you fight and avoid damage and kick ass your level will go up which affects alot. Enemies will soon counter your attacks, move faster, use new techniques and new stronger enemies will appear in the place of weaker enemies. The higher the level you defeat enemies,the more money you will earn at the end of a stage which is used for upgrades and new moves. If your getting your ass kick instead the level will gradually (or sharply if you die) drop to lower levels making things easier. I will admit that it's not perfect, fighting an enemy to have the level raise making it harder isn't exactly fun. However you have a few ways of evening the odds.


Gene can "unleash" the God Hand to do increased damage and become invulnerable allowing you to make quick work of enemies. Also using "roulette" orbs Gene can activate an over the top attack such as summoning a base ball bat to send foes flying. This allows you to try to fight bosses "fair" just using your regular attacks, or go all out and finish them within seconds.

While I love God Hand there are some faults with the combat system. Enemies can attack through enemies and due to the nature of the camera and controls makes it almost impossible to successfully fight multiple enemies. The difficulty curve is high for this game as you'll need money to get better moves and upgrades, but to do so you'll have to fight at harder levels to do so. My first successful completion of God Hand clocked me at 75 continues used. I considered God Hand to be the second most balanced action title release which leaves you know what as the first.

That's right it's Ninja Gaiden Black time, considered by many action fans (including yours truly) to be the pinnacle of action titles. Ninja Gaiden Black is about making the player feel like a bad ass, and making every enemy in the game even more of a bad ass. Death comes quick in Ninja Gaiden, in fact many people were unable to beat the first level of it on normal. There is no such thing as being invulnerable after getting hit, and enemies can quickly reduce your health bar to zero in a flash. To make up for this, Ryu ( the protagonist) is an absolute warrior. He moves very fast, is responsive and can fight enemies coming at him from all directions easily. Each weapon he can use changes his attack style dramatically, from slow and powerful to fast and crowd control. Boss fights are over the top grudge matches with enemies that have un blockable attacks and will use any means to kill you. Unlike God Hand there are no trump cards to play in Ninja Gaiden Black, you have magic powers that can be used but none of them do alot of damage against bosses leaving you to your combat skills to survive.

It is that focus on combat that makes Ninja Gaiden Black so amazing and satisfying, to walk into a room of 6 demons and know that you can kill them all easily (if your good anyway) without breaking a sweat. This is the game for the player who likes to be challenged and even with all the times I died I never felt that it was the game's fault. To makes things better (or worse for newcomers) each difficulty level re writes the game. Item and enemy positions are changed, new bosses are added, and new species of enemies are thrown into the mix the harder you make the game providing a fairly fresh challenge with each play through. Master Ninja which is the hardest difficulty is regarded as one of the hardest modes in just about any game, I managed to get half way into it before throwing up the white flag. With all these games as sources of inspiration it's time to talk about my idea.

Since my first play of God Hand over a year ago this idea has been brewing in my head. For my game like the successes of the genre the meat of the game will be it's combat. The player will have 4 buttons to use for combat, representing each hand and each leg. From there pressing the button will result in a low attack (hands will aim at the chest for example) holding will result in a high attack. Enemies will learn if you constantly attack low to block and counter those attacks, requiring you to mix it up. Every attack in the game can be customized onto your combo tree, from which running attack you want to grapple moves. I think 3 difficulty levels will suffice, the lower you play on the less likely enemies will dodge and counter, and like the movies groups of enemies will take turns attacking. The harder the level you play at enemies will attack you at the same time requiring strategy of attacking them. Unlike God Hand the difficulty can be changed on the fly as I think giving control to the player is important. Beating enemies on higher levels will give you tokens ( I think a simple bronze, silver, gold will do here) certain upgrades and moves will require a certain type and will reward the player with better moves and such for playing the game better.

One problem that I have with action titles is that many don't provide the player with complete attack coverage. In God Hand you can't fight enemies that get behind you, and groups are impossible to fight. In my game you have 360 degree coverage around the player, and are able to attack any one around you at will. This allows players to successfully fend off foes from all directions, and I will damn make sure that enemies will not punch through each other. The other issue I've seen in most action titles is the camera. Many games like the camera in a cinematic view which is great for screenshots, but makes fighting difficult. For this game the camera needs to be close enough that you can see the various attack tells of enemies , yet far enough that the player can see all around the character. I'm thinking about a side view or almost over head view for this game, in all seriousness I would have to see this action before making up my mind.

Two ideas I'm thinking about including in this game are a fully regenerating health bar and a stamina bar, more on stamina in a little bit. One constant problem in any action title is never having enough health to continue in a level. In this game, your health bar will regenerate while not in combat and slowly during combat as long as your not taking direct damage. This serves two purposes, first it eliminates the need to place objects solely for smashing to find health items. Second it frees up the designers to create truly challenging and interesting situations knowing that they won't need to worry about the player arriving at it with too little health to continue. There are far better ways to have challenge in a game without forcing the player to restart because they took one too many hits in the last section.

The idea for the stamina bar figures into the defense options that are coming up. Many action titles can become button mashers and I have come up with a nifty solution to it. Every attack in the game will have an attack rating and a stamina rate. Stronger blows will reduce your stamina meter faster and without stamina you will be unable to attack or perform advance defense maneuvers. This will also allow players to balance out including attacks that can knock out enemies in a few hits, for lighter attacks better for long fights. Your stamina meter will be recharging whenever your not dodging attacks or performing attacks to keep it from becoming too much of a crutch. If you keep pushing the same button you'll perform the same attack that will do less damage but drain less stamina requiring the players to mix it up.

Another important factor in action titles is defense, and I have some ideas in mind for my game. There are five different ways to avoid damage, starting out with the standard block. The regular block costs no stamina to use and will reduce damage taken in combat, of course certain attacks cannot be blocked and this is more of a last choice situation. Next is evading, pressing the block button before any attack connects will allow the player to evade the attack and set up for a counterattack. The act of evading however will cost some stamina keeping the player from exploiting it. Next which I'm still debating about having is the classic evade roll in other action titles to get away from large groups of enemies . I'm still not sure if I want that in there as it seems abit too arcade like for this title. Next are more advance techniques which may have to be unlocked in the game. First is using your attack to block another one, such as using your hand to stop a punch, you have to press the attack button before the attack connects. This sets up a foe for a powerful counterattack but costs a good amount of stamina. Lastly is the grab counter, you grab the opponents hand or foot to prepare for a powerful grapple attack. Costs the most stamina but will do the most damage. Another idea is to have clothing that effects stamina drain and resistance to damage, heaver clothes will reduce damage but will cause the stamina meter to drain faster.

With those bases covered , customizable attacks, defense, attack coverage, and proper rewards I think this title would be an excellent action game. And following in the foot steps of many action titles the story isn't going to be the reason to play, but I do promise a better ending then going out to get a cheeseburger with the president.

Josh

Hiding in the dark with a rocket launcher.

One genre that I've never been a huge fan of is the Stealth genre, I'm not much for hiding in the shadows. The only series I do play is the Metal Gear Solid series which I will be getting into detail about later on.





Before we actually had a stealth genre, it seemed to be a prerequisite in every action game. A level that if the enemy sees the player the entire level will have to be start over, forcing the player to learn patrol patterns and halts progression for awhile. Another "feature" is the removal of all weapons you have so even if you did want to pick off enemies you couldn't. After the release of Metal Gear Solid the genre took off and we started to see games created with just stealth elements.





Splinter Cell is most likely to be the second recognizable stealth series, and I'm not a fan of it. To me Splinter Cell represents the worst aspects of stealth game play. You the player are forced to follow a specific path thru the levels and have to remember that an enemy will walk by corridor 3 every 5 minutes. The entire game is about shooting lights and getting spotted means you will be easily gunned down by the opposing forces. From impressions I've read these aspects have been toned down in the later iterations, but it's not a game I like to play. I have similar complaints about old school adventure games where your left to not deduce the logic of the game world, but the crazy logic the designer came up with. Still from looking at the genre I can see how hard it is to create a stealth game.





There are certain factors that need to be taken into account when creating a stealth game that I can see from my own thoughts on creating stealth games. One idea I have is a stealth game where the player has access to all kinds of abilities, cloaking, enhanced strength and agility, and a few others and has to use it to fight super natural creatures. A defining moment has the player sneaking thru a town while a werewolf is stalking them. The problem is how powerful should the player be? Linking to the title of this entry, it's hard to find a need to be stealthy when you have a rocket launcher in your hands. Take the Hulk (not counting being Bruce Banner), would the Hulk at any point need to stick to shadows and stay out of sight? Then there is the factor of the character itself, should the main character be able to survive an encounter? If the player can just fight and win every fight there goes being stealthy as well. This is one of those reasons that I can't get into alot of the games in the genre, if I'm supposed to be some kind of bad ass super spy why can't I survive one fire fight?



Going back to my comment on the Metal Gear series I'm going to go into detail why I like them more then other stealth games. There are of course the interesting characters and cut scenes (Psycho Mantis and The End were awesome), but game play is that right balance between stealth and firepower. Snake is a bad ass and can survive and win most fire fights (with the new camera introduced made it easier), the challenge is that ammo is hard to find and enemies will keep coming. Unlike other stealth games when it feels like one encounter and I'm screwed for the remainder of the level.



Recently Assassin's Creed has taken the stealth idea in a different direction. Altair is a bad ass and in a one on one fight will win every time, but when surrounded there is no hope. Also I love the idea of blending in crowds as a stealth tactic. I haven't played it yet (no job = not splurging on alot of video games), but it sounds right up my alley. Also from watching it in action gave me inspiration for my own take on an open world game with stealth.







I don't like to create game ideas based on licenses, which I'll probably create an entry about later on, but one license I would like to work on is the setting of Robin Hood. The game loosely follows the myth of Robin Hood, after a brief tutorial during the crusades you arrive back in England and are given an open world to explore. You basically create the myth of Robin Hood, if you want to be a killer and go after the guards and such you can do that. If you want to only wound and steal from the rich and give to the poor that's possible too. You can of course hide in the crowds and perform Errol Flynn inspired feats of agility. I want the player to be able to sneak into castles at night to try to steal from the coffers, disguises can work and the player can shoot a rope arrow onto almost any surface to create a path. In terms of power the player can fight probably 2 characters at once, any more and you must flee unless you can pick them off with your bow and arrows. I think this could be an amazing game and a great step in the right direction for stealth game play.



In my opinion the idea of a "stealth" game is over and done with. Just having that one element feels bored and uninspired to me. Instead I want games with a strong stealth element but with more options. Take Assassin's Creed and my Robin Hood idea, both games have a strong stealth element but it's not just the only option available. MGS 4 is also looking to be another interesting take on the stealth genre, and it sure as hell beats shooting out lamps to get thru a level.


Josh

Two (or more) against the world.

For this entry I'm taking a look at Co-op style of gameplay while I'm not a fan of competitive multiplayer, co-op is right up my alley. There are many variations on co-op gameplay, but the basic rules stay constant. Two or more players play against the AI or in Splinter Cell's case another team of players to complete objectives or beat a level. I have good memories of 4 player co-op in Serious Sam and the craziness that is 4 against 100 fights. Great co-op can be an amazing experience and a great way to introduce a new comer to a game. Another factor is the more skilled player helping out their partner and taking one for the team. Yet if Co-Op was so great then why doesn't every game have it?




Co-op is a tricky thing to balance, recently with Trauma Center New Blood and the Halo franchise co-op mode was replaying the single player mode with an extra set of hands. The importance of this is that these two games modes were not designed first and foremost as multiplayer, which limited how interesting they can be by doing the same thing over again. Granted having a second player adds a certain level of expertise or insanity to the mix to each level which makes thing a bit different on a second play thru. In Halo enemies became stronger and more numerous to compensate , I don't know if Trauma Center changed anything in multiplayer. There are examples however are games made for the co-op crowd.




Finding games specifically made for co-op play is a bit trickier . Lately EA attempted this with Army of Two but from what I've seen and read about it, the game didn't succeed too well which I will be going into detail about the pitfalls of co-op design later. Resident Evil OutBreak was an interesting case, playing thru the world of Resident Evil as civilians teaming up to fight the undead. Splinter Cell which I mentioned earlier was the first I've seen to do co-op vs co-op and was a great idea. With the new GTA 4 game, there is a similar idea with Cops and Robbers mode which I bet is a blast.



Recently the game Crackdown allowed two players to exist in a huge open world city and let them go nuts. I think this is a fantastic start and would like to see this type of thinking developed further. One idea I had in a game was to allow 2-4 players inside a city GTA style, and allow them to split up or team up at will. Lets say that 3 players rob a bank on the west side of town drawing the police to that area, while the fourth player will hit the now lightly defended target on the east side. Or while two players rob the bank, the others can provide cover and suppression a building away to attack the cops from two fronts. I also want to get away from infinite magically appearing cops which will make things alot more tense.



With all the praise I have for co-op games, there are certain pitfalls that need to be avoided. One is the complete separation of players, basically making it so that neither player will ever come in contact with the other in a level is a bad idea. Since it turns the game into single player since there will be no interaction between the gamers. Next are the done into the ground co-op "puzzles". Such as the exciting two players have to turn a key at the same time, or one player has to help another over a box to proceed. While Army of Two didn't exactly succeed at co-op gaming there is a game that tried it first and failed even more at it.



Mark of Kri was one of my favorite titles on the PS2, a combination of Disney style visuals with over the top action. Which is why it's sequel Rise of the Kasai was such a huge disappointment. The sequel had the player and an AI partner go thru each level. Each one going a different way, the problem is that the AI was not at the level needed for this game, and sometimes got stuck or even lost in a level. One time the AI partner would not step onto the the goal marker and I was unable to continue. The level design was also very basic, there was very little difference in being one character as opposed to the other and the game really just lack the charm of the first one. They basically bet the farm on the whole co-op mechanic and lost, but there are many ways of designing co-op levels.



When it comes to designing co-op levels from what I've seen falls into a few categories. One idea is to design a level almost in perfect symmetry , player A goes left player B goes right maybe they'll come together for an important fight or one will help the other at certain spots. Eventually they'll meet up and finish the level, which I believe is what Gears of War did. Next is two players together, similar to the Syphon Filter series. Both players need to stay close to each other and certain areas require both players or neither can proceed. This is based on the classic co-op style seen in Contra as both players need to be near each other to continue. What I want to see in the future is a more open world level design. Give me a huge area to explore, sprinkle in 3 or 4 objectives with multiple ways to solve them and let me and a partner go nuts. If we want to stay together and complete them slower but easier that's fine, if we want to split up and go our own way that's ok as well. Recently Halo 3 did up to 4 player co-op which in my opinion is great, the more players the better.

I believe the future for co-op games is in the open world genre, we already had a small taste of it in CrackDown and it sure beats dieing because my idiot partner kept the screen from scrolling causing me to fall into a pit :)

Josh

All dressed up and no where to go... or my GTA 4 review.

With the final trigger pulled I finished GTA 4, after watching one very bittersweet ending it's time for my review.


First off I'm going to say that overall GTA 4 is the best one in the series, I still think that the previous ones did some elements better though. I prefer the soundtrack from Vice City, and the collection of vehicles from San Andreas. While GTA 4 has improved on the formula in previous games, it has failed to learn anything from the GTA clones that have further improved the genre.

Getting off the boat into Liberty City, the best part of the game is the city itself which for once in the genre feels like a living breathing city. This is where RockStar has raised the bar on open world design. Going on the internet and exploring the city via a helicopter were great moments and of course crashing the helicopter in the ocean. It's a shame however that even by the end of the game there really isn't alot that you can explore and there is no way in hell I'm going to hunt 200 pigeons I don't care what the achievement is.

Niko the newest protagonist is a troubled man, and throughout the story you'll see what makes him tick, too bad the story isn't exactly the best. In the beginning of the game as you and Niko are getting used to the city the missions and story are intertwined as you help your cousin out and try to earn some money to scrape by. At the halfway point the story all but disappears as I become the quintessential errand boy for every gang in the city, all while Niko says he needs money while he has over a half a million dollars in his pocket. One change from previous GTA games is that certain enemies you can spare their life instead of killing him, unfortunately with exception to the final choice there isn't a huge change in the story. To me the ratio of things to do and story development are negatively correlated, the more side missions I had the less developed the story was which was a shame.

Instead of working at the gym or eating pizza all day, friends and relationships are the order of business in GTA 4. You can call up (or get a call) from friends to go out to one of the many local places in GTA 4. I did not like this mechanic as it just got bothersome and having certain abilities keyed into this system seems like a way force you into doing this. As it turns out everyone has some talent to aid Niko, from calling in people to help you, to a car full of weapons, but to get help you need to treat people to drinks or food which gets repetitive fast. As what you do in each activity doesn't change, so be prepare to get drunk multiple times or beat someone at darts for the nth time.

I think it's time to talk about women in GTA 4, you have the options of visiting them at the strip clubs, picking up some prostitutes off the street , or having a date which leads to you know what back their apartment. The game is really just front loaded with sexist jokes and remarks which are sure to make any woman proud to be a gamer. I could mind it if it was just one character who was like this and one woman who is the token slut, but when it's everyone it just reeks of pandering to a juvenile audience. Fortunately these jokes die down by the halfway point but the damage is done . On Corvus Elrod's blog he talked about his views and complaints regarding this view of women in GTA 4 (http://blog.pjsattic.com/corvus/2008/05/some-gta-iv-questions/). Even after reaching the climax I'm not going to refute his viewpoint, there is a decent game underneath all the boob jokes and sex, but your going to be expose to it if you want to play this game.


With that said it's time to talk about gameplay, I'm not going to go into detail about the missions as this has been left mostly unchanged from previous entries, you go meet someone, then you go kill something or blow up something. What's new is the ability to take taxi cabs to any where in the city and the ability to restart a mission after failing it. Rockstar has finally saw fit to add in free aiming which helps alot, too bad that enemies seem to blend into the background in almost every fight. Niko also sports some hand to hand skills, which you will probably never use again once you get your first gun.


After spending the last week in Liberty City I can say that RockStar is going for a less gamey feel and more of an experience. Your not given any real rewards like new weapons for completing side missions , also gone is the ability to buy up property Ala Vice City and San Andreas. While it does make the city that much more alive, it leaves the player with very little to do other then missions. My problems with GTA 4 is that RockStar really hasn't learned anything from it's competitors. Missions can be failed at the drop of a dime forcing you to restart, unlike Saint's Row which had mid mission and sometimes multiple checkpoints. Driving which is pretty good once you get used to it, is broken as AI drivers have perfect driving ability. During chases the chasee can push aside buses and trucks while it stays on it's perfect line. While chasing people that your planning on killing, you can't actually kill them on the chase, which makes as much sense in game as it does in this entry. Missions are not designed to give a player options on how to solve them, with very rare exceptions. Not counting the big choice at the end, there really isn't any reason to replay GTA 4 for the missions, as you'll be doing the same thing over and over again. I'm not a fan of multi player so I won't be rendering any judgement on the multi player side of GTA 4.

In the end I liked GTA 4, not loving it or hating it, for every good moment in the game there are several times more crappy moments that made me want to quit. If RockStar can put in mid mission check points and expand the world, I would be impressed. GTA 4 is not going to be my game of the year pick by any means but fans will get their money's worth. I'm giving GTA 4 a crazy drunken girlfriend (seriously every woman in this game gets crazy when they're drunk, whatever happened to nice drunks ?)


Josh

" Sweet dreams are made of these..."

Time for part 2 of my look into my creative process, this time I'm talking about inspiration. Inspiration is an important element in creative people and without it, we would not have creative people :) . For me I have two equally powerful sources of Inspiration that have led to my game ideas.



Lets get the "normal" one out of the way first, my consciousness mind. In regards to part one, my mind is always "on" thanks to my mind's eye and I can get struck with inspiration at any time. Sometimes it could be as clear as an "aha" moment or could take awhile to come together in my mind. Some of my ideas come from playing a video game and liking a particular gameplay system, or it could be me thinking " This sucks I could have made it much better". I've been inspired by all sorts of random topics, from a platformer stealth game after watching Tom and Jerry. To developing a RPG after walking home one night and having light shine on me in such a way that I had 4 shadows. It is really about taking everything in and being exposed to new things, I've been spending my time reading books suggested in Chris Crawford's book on game design and from Tom Sloper's list on his site. You can never be sure when inspiration is going to strike. Sometimes it can from an unexpected source.

Now to move into weird territory, my sub consciousness has been a constant source of out there ideas. On the outside I look like you typical white adult male, inside however things are abit different. I should be dreaming about supermodels and becoming rich , instead I dream about the end of the world, all sorts of demons trying to kill me, getting lost in random areas and these are just on the lower end of the craziness. Yet some of my most original and biggest ideas come from my dreams, such as my take on Lord Of The Flies and my super hero game I hinted at in part 1. I even had a dream which could probably be the craziest conspiracy theory of all time which I won't be saying here for obvious reasons.

These vivid dreams do have a price though, whatever happens in them I can feel a dull sensation in my body of what's happening in the dream. So if I get impaled thru the chest and lifted 5 feet above the ground , I can feel the thing in my chest. Which makes things pretty disturbing when I have some of my "weird" dreams which make Silent Hill look like Blue's Clues. To protect my image and to keep anyone from calling any psychiatric wards, I am not going to discuss those dreams here. So yes I wouldn't mind having a dream with beautiful super models that are completely into me, instead I had a dream where a 300 pound male zombie bit into the top of my skull.

Still I wouldn't trade my dreams for more peaceful ones, as they have run the gambit of emotions for me. I've had dreams that were so good I actually felt depressed one time that I had to wake up from it. One other time I sat straight up scared out of my mind sweating from a dream. The funny thing is that for the most part my dreams are not influenced by real life, except for one time that I watched a Deadliest Catch marathon and dreamt I was on a crab boat, long story short it did not work out well for me. I've taken to analyzing my dreams and seeing if there is a potential story or gameplay system in there, which another idea I have is a realistic take on a monster movie idea. Thanks to my mind's eye I can view almost all my dreams when I'm awake again pretty clearly which helps analyzing them. I've read that psychologists say not to analyze your dreams as it leads to insanity, but I consider myself on that line now and it can't make things any worse :)

I've come to embraced my forms of inspiration and I think I've become more creative thanks to it. I really don't see myself at odds with my creative process which helps the ideas flow for me.


Josh (who is totally going to have a hard time sleeping tonight)

In for a penny, in for a pound.

Last week was the launch of Wii-Ware which allows Wii owners to download new Wii exclusives to their system. One of these games Final Fantasy: My life as a king is the first to have downloadable content available for purchase on the Wii, which is late to the party thanks to Xbox live and its Microsoft points. Thinking about getting this game and the content it has , has got me thinking about downloadable content and the future of possible mini expansions to titles.



Yet another issue that I'm torn with, as I am an old school gamer. Back then buying a game was it, you got everything associated with it and knew that you never had to spend any more money on content for it. It has taken this long for me to finally accept buying downloadable content for my consoles thanks to Rez HD yet I still think that we're entering the danger zone. My issue is that game prices are still high, and asking me to spend additional money plus the $50 or more for the game doesn't sit right with me. And we have lovely EA who is now charging for content already on the disc, which honestly didn't surprise me that they would be the first to pull that.



Also on the 360 we have games that charge you for actual new content, RockBand lets you download new songs for $2 a pop or abit more for a pak of songs. I would be quick to use up some points if I didn't just spend $160 for the game, and there is the fact that I still can't sing or drum to save my life.



To add further injury to my weakened wallet, there are games that charge you money for stuff that has no new gameplay content, such as new clothing for characters, and the infamous "horse armor" from Oblivion that I can't really talk about without going into a huge rant about Oblivion. This I believe is a sign of the Apocalypse , now these examples have been shown on Microsoft's side and the pc, we still have yet to see what Nintendo is going to do.


So then what kind of downloadable content will make this gaming vet happy? First no more $50+ games that will have downloadable content (I'm looking at you GTA 4), checking out the content on the Final Fantasy game, and the game is priced at $15 with at most you would spend on it for now would take it up to about $30. The part I like is that while some of this content is purely cosmetic the rest greatly changes and adds onto the gameplay which is what I want to see. Give me a game at a lower price then retail and let me pick and choose what I want to buy. I also think that this a great way to sorta demo a game, let me have the basic version for a low price and I'll add what looks interesting to me. The other factor is that there has to be a game already available, I don't want to spend money on something that will only give me about 2 hours of content and the rest I have to buy thru downloads. Give me a full game at a low price and then add in further things for me to do. Moving away from the consoles it's time to talk about a platform that is no stranger to expansions and downloadable content.



That's right the computer, chances are we all at one point have bought an expansion for a game we own. Creating an expansion is always tricky business, just adding in new artwork and a few missions will get your fans in an uproar. Completely change the game and you'll have fans accusing you of destroying your game. One thing that I'm not happy with are companies charging $40 for an expansion *cough Relic *cough Gas Powered games, excuse me. I'm sorry but I don't care how much you put into an expansion, charging retail price for an expansion does not work for me. Which raises up the argument for what is being called "mini expansions".



Mini expansions are technically parts of an expansion title you can buy at a lower cost. Lets take a role playing game for example, instead of the developers putting all their energy into a brand new expansion they could instead release paks of new quests at $10. Or a strategy title could introduce just a new side to play with and release that at a discounted price. I can already tell that many people are probably either for or against content like that. First how do we distinguish between 5,10,20 dollar content? Second what will be the overall quality of this "new content? Issues like these are the reasons why alot of pc gamers aren't happy about mini expansions. Yet reading a post by Brad Wardell has me thinking about the future.



Over at the Sins of the Solar Empire forums, Brad made a post about the future of the game. One of the common complaints about pc games is the post game support provided by alot of companies. Basically there are many games that still have bugs in them that companies no longer supports which leaves the consumer SOL. One reason for this is that companies do not have the money or man power needed to support games permanently , and in all seriousness who can blame them? What Brad purposes is that thru mini expansions a game company can keep a game supported for a far greater lifespan then other companies, being compensated for new content and fixes can keep things going. Also it will allow developers to make money without having to spend alot of money on a new engine or technology.



The idea is admirable but I still see certain flaws in the use of mini expansions. With constant updates it would be hard to create a bug free game as with most patches there is always a chance a new bug will slink on in. For single player games new content is always a good thing, but when it comes to multiplayer , balance is a huge factor. Creating new units and sides is great, but if they don't mesh well with the previous content it can lead to imbalanced matches which can destroy balance even further. One option is to split the community between the haves and the have not, but if a company puts out multiple expansions I can see that causing problems with the community split so much. While I have a feeling if any development house can do it, Stardock can I'm still worried when some of the less reputable companies get their hands on this idea.



While reading a post online regarding Rock Band someone said that it was built not as a game, but as it's own platform, and that notion has stuck with me. Perhaps it's time to stop treating bigger games as just games and treat them like their own entity. If Rockstar can do that with GTA 4 and create new cities , new mission styles and support GTA 4 for years that could be the start of something big. Instead of having multiple installments of a video game, we could have just one version that is constantly being updated and growing and that is something I'm in support of.

" These eyes, just want to hold you, hold you again."

It's time for part one of my two part introspective look at my thought process. I bet for the 2 people who view this blog are probably wondering about the name "Mind's Eye" in case your not, shut up I'm doing this anyway.



"Mind's Eye" is a term I heard in my one of the many psychology courses I took during college, it refers to ones ability to visualize thoughts in their head. My ability to visualize is my strongest element, and has become a constant aid when it comes to being creative. Without concentrating I can see things yet not really see them (it's confusing I know), I can manipulate this to produce almost anything I want, from ruins on top of an island to a space ship battle, to things better left unsaid. When I do focus things become alot more clearer, I can see the exact path I take from my house to my college 45 minutes away, or create my own mini map to help me find where I need to go.



You see where I'm going with this right? When I concentrate I can create UIs and screenshots of game ideas, I can almost play the game idea in my head and see how it works. This has been an amazing tool and has helped me take those game ideas and start moving them from my head to the real world. While I'm typing this I'm looking at a super hero inspired open world game and seeing how I want the super powers to work in game. This also has a great effect along with my dreams which I will be going into far greater detail in part two.



Before I start writing up any game documents I make sure that I can actually see the game in my head, not just that cool boss fight, but actually playing the game. Unfortunately this ability at visualizing has come at a cost, I suffer from problems with motor skills and chronic pain all over. Which has been a never ending thorn in my side, and leg, and head, and you get the idea.



I've had this "talent" for as long as I can remember, and reading books on creative thinking have only strengthen it, I can now also feel and not feel (now I'm just milking it) things that I'm visualizing. Now if you think this has been a weird enough entry, just wait til you see the next one .





Josh

Shutting down my computer.

It has been over 2 months since I last played a PC game on my computer, and I can't help but feel the decline of the PC industry. The part that saddens me is that it's not just about copy protection any more, it's about quality.



Looking at my past PC game purchases I can see the same genres of games that make up the industry today, strategy , shooters, and RPGS and I've been playing on the PC since 1994. Looking at my other platforms I have Okami, Godhand, Nocturne, Mark of Kri, Shadow of the Colossus among many other unique titles. Yet for the pc it's the same 3 things over and over again. The industry has become evolutionary not revolutionary and I'm getting tired of it. How many MMOS are going to be release that copy WoW? How many first person shooters are going to try to replicate BioShock? I can't wait to see what happens to the strategy genre when StarCraft 2 hits the market.


I can take some solace in the fact that the indie market is always trying something new and I commend them for it. The last unique title I played on the PC was Armageddon Empires. The PC market has become an endless stream of reiterations and rehashes compared to the other platforms. Hell the DS released more unique titles last month then the PC has all year so far. The big question is why?


I think there are 2 big reasons for this lack of innovation in the industry. First is considered to be the main advantage of the PC: the keyboard and mouse. These controls are designed to work well only with the above mentioned genres, not so well in creating a fighting game or a platformer. I think what needs to be done is to officially add the 360 controller to the PC lineup, make it work thru wireless with the computer and allow PC games to be developed that are used primarily by it. The more control options available the greater chance of getting diverse games on the PC.



The second reason is harder to fix, is that the PC market is not favorable on selling or developing unique titles. I can't begin this argument without talking about Peter Molyneux. I hate to say anything bad about him as I love the game ideas he comes up with, yet I'm always disappointed when the time comes to play them. In all seriousness I don't know what the reason is, he could just be biting off more then he can chew with his ideas, yet if Will Wright can create Spore it shouldn't be that hard to design something unique. Let's face facts, the industry in it's current form is high on the AAA titles and is only looking for the next GTA or Sims (ironic as the Sims was so unique that it took some time to get a company interested in it). I hear reports that publishers want game sales on the PC in the millions, what the hell are they on!? The problem is that with the mega success that is WoW publishers think that all AAA titles can make that amount of money.



Creating a game on the PC has it's own share of problems from the console, making sure that it can run on a multitude of systems is a nightmare that I really don't want to live, and then we have piracy which has no doubt lead to many creative games getting left by the wayside. It's harder to gauge the success of a unique title, which leads to many pirates "trying out" these games and causing a lost of sales.



I think another problem is the use of sharing game engines on the PC. While many console games are built using various engines, for the PC all I hear is "built using the Unreal 3 engine!!!" which if you don't know is a first person shooter. While it is possible to develop other genres using these mainstream engines, of course the easier games to create are from the genres that the engines came from. Your not going to take the custom made engine from a Lamborghini and put it in a mini van are you?

Another problem is that it seems to be easier to release crap on the PC then on the consoles. From the past I remember hearing that the console makers have guidelines that need to be followed for a game to be released on their platform. That doesn't exist for the most part on the PC which leads to horrible budget titles, which are put in with the great titles and makes it hard to distinguish the good from the bad.



I'm really at a lost of what needs to be done here, Microsoft's Games for Windows initiative was a bust, and looking at the coming soon list isn't inspiring much confidence. Even my game ideas that I believe could work on the PC platform are geared towards these 3 genres in some way. Where is my Katamari Damacy on the PC, or Shadow of the Colossus? I think we need to lock Sid Meier and Brad Wardell in a room with Suda 51 and Tetsuya Mizuguchi and see what comes of it .



Josh

I'm totally Effing this.

No this blog isn't becoming "Blue", I'm just speaking as one of the characters in one of my favorite games of the year so far The World Ends With You for the Nintendo DS (or TWEWY for this entry). While telling my cousin about my blog he suggested that I try reviewing games on here, so here goes.


Once in a blue moon when the planets are aligned and cats and dogs do the mambo together, Square-Enix releases a game that is neither Final or Questing. The first time this rare phenomenon happened we got Chrono Trigger one of the best Snes titles and one of my favorite games. The next time it happened , Kingdom Hearts arrived which answered the question on every one's mind "Can Donald Duck kick Sephiroth's ass?" which turns out he could(yes I had to use WikiPedia to find the correct spelling , at least I think it is). A few years ago Kingdom Hearts got a side story that took place on the GBA which combined action rpgs with CCGs ( a very lovely combo if I do say so myself), and now that same team has decided to create something new. TWEWY takes a mish mash of various game systems, a unique story, and gameplay that is sure to break your brain the first time you play.


The story begins with standard EMO kid Neku awaking at the Shibuya Scramble, and some things are out of whack. No one can see him, he has a strange pin in his hand, and he receives an email threatening his demise if he doesn't comply. Thus begins a strange tale of ramen, fashion trends, and a very addicting mini game. Like the story, Neku grows over the course of the adventure and soon loses that EMO stereotype as he meets the strange cast of characters, including one which will probably become a Zetta star and best new character of the year.

If the story wasn't confusing enough, the gameplay easily takes the cake. Combat takes place on both screens, Neku on the bottom screen and a partner on the top. All of Neku's actions are controlled by the stylus and sometimes the microphone. Those pins I was talking about earlier are actually the source of his power and each pin provides a different method of attacking. From summoning chains across the screen to lifting up cars and slamming them into the wide variety of enemies. Each pin has a different way of activating, some require Neku to scratch the enemy, others require a quick vertical slash with the stylus, and the list goes on. If that isn't confusing enough for you , your partner is controlled at the same time fighting the same enemies but on a different screen. Your partner is controlled by either using the directional pad or the AXYB buttons for us lefties out there. Each partner has a different method of attacking, from a game of high/low to even poker adds yet another factor for your brain to figure in while playing.Obviously this takes some getting used to , and I still haven't gotten it completely understood but the game allows you to let the AI take control of them.

Outside of combat there are plenty of things to occupy your time , food can be eaten and then digested to provide numerous permanent benefits to your characters. You can only eat 24"bytes" of food a day to prevent needless power leveling. Fashion rules the streets and wearing pins with popular brands can double their attack power. Clothing provides stat bonuses, just make sure your brave enough to wear that 2 piece black bikini in public.

The 2 things that I love about TWEWY are how you can manipulate the game, and how all these systems interact. The game rewards players who master the game with better items and upping the risk/reward factor. Fights can be chained to up the item drop rate of them at the cost of improving the stats of the enemies with each consecutive fight. At any time you can lower your max health to increase the base number for your drop rate which is required when going for the rarest items. There are 4 difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard, and ultimate) which affect enemy health, attack, and defense. Every enemy has a chance of dropping one of 4 items depending on what difficulty the game is set to, and trust me fighting a boss on normal and hard are two very different experiences. Pins gain experience with each fight and many of them can evolve into stronger forms based on the type of experience they get (that's right there are several types of exp at work).

Now for the systems, the idea of managing food, fashion trends, dual screen combat, and building a hand of pins to use sounds challenging , yet the game does an admirable job of explaining and introducing you to these factors. The game also features a variety of J-Pop which will slowly infect your minds and have you singing it in your head after a few days. The learning curve is abit high for this game which may keep the game from achieving a huge following, and the modern setting may keep JRPG nuts from even looking at this game. Still this is one of my favorite games in some time, I'm playing it more then GTA 4 and since sales of this game will determine if we get another one, I urge you to try this game .

Since I'm beginning to agree with the idea that reviews don't need scores I'm giving The World Ends With You a SOHCAHTOA.

Josh.

Playing in the sand box.

So I've been exploring the world of Grand Theft Auto 4, and while I'm not far enough into it to give any impressions, it has already showed me what I really want out of the sandbox genre.


The genre itself is one of the trickiest ones to design, no thanks to the popularity of GTA makes us compare just about any game from the genre to GTA. One problem is that the genre is built upon several core elements of gameplay, and if just one is out of whack it brings down the rest of the game. In GTA and it's clones, those elements are driving, shooting, and I'm going to combine on foot and missions into just the story side. Having played a little bit of GTA4, those elements have been heighten but I'm not convinced yet that they're fine tuned.



I think building off my comparison of a GTA game to the movie Death Wish there are certain gameplay mechanics I haven't seen anyone attempt in the genre that I think could move it forward. First off, I'm tired of starting out as criminal or having to become a drug dealer in the world, why can't I begin like anyone entering a city for the first time as a bright eye wanderer ready to settle down? I don't want my only options to be killing people or being a get away driver, let me perhaps get an office job during the day to make money and be a underground brawler during the night. While I still want the options to advance in the illegal area, I want some things I can do that won't get me arrested or killed.



Next is the world that the game takes place in. The first complaint I have with GTA4 is that not all buildings can be entered and there is no indication of which ones are (there is the map that comes with the game but I'm talking about in game). I want a fully fleshed out city to explore, and I think that design decision can have a huge affect on the game. Instead of giving me multiple islands that take forever to get around with, give me one city and let every building in it be explorable. The little details I've witness in GTA4 have been great now let them take that up to the buildings and things will be good.


Another split in design from most sandbox games is that instead of a focused story, random events that can change the city and your experiences would be a welcomed changed. I'll admit that this will hurt the chance of a huge blockbuster story line, but I think this will enhance gameplay tremendously. Take for example entering the city for the first time, in one case you could be getting off the train and run into a local mob boss who likes the look of you and gives you his card. Another time, someone could be mugged and it's your choice to whether to help the person or ignore them. If you decide to help you can also decide to pocket some of the money you recovered. Later on in the game other events can shape the world and your efforts in the city, such as you hear reports of a serial killer on the loose which forces you to decide to either avoid that area or go in and try to be a vigilante. Which brings up another good idea that would no doubt be a bitch to program.


Realistic people, in most sand box games your interaction with the populace comes from story characters and that's it. In my game I want you to be able to talk to and interact with anyone on the street. It will be easier to be friendly with people that are near your living arrangement or job, but the option to befriend a random stranger is possible. I want violent actions to have a consequence more then just having a star added to your wanted level. Take that serial killer example for instance, lets say you decide to ignore him and he strikes again, this time killing a good friend of yours now what are you going to do? To do this once again the game will need to be focused on smaller real estate then in most sand box titles. Which leads to another point that I think we're close to.



Realistic space to explore, so far playing GTA4 it feels like I'm in a real city and that is a huge step up from Saint's Row. In fact I would go as far as suggesting that from now on, an architect should be brought in to help design the overall areas of the game space. I don't want to see only 2 super markets in the entire city, I want to explore a place that I could live in real life. Playing Saint's Row, the whole place felt really soulless to me and was just set up to have a backdrop for the missions.



Combat in sandbox games always leaves me underwhelmed, the reason is that it's never really fleshed out to the point that it could stand on its own outside of the open world aspect. I hated the combat in Oblivion as unless I stayed with a sword swinging magic user, or a magic using thief I couldn't win any fights. Saint's Row actually had decent shooting aspects and was one of the high points in it. Playing GTA 4, the combat hasn't clicked with me yet as neither free aiming or the lock on feels responsive to me. Also aiming while driving any vehicle is an exercise in frustration. I prefer free aiming when shooting weapons, but for my open world game there would be a close range fighting system as well.




Another problem that I have with just about every open world game is repeating missions, I don't find it fun having to drive back to the mission spot if I fail, now this problem has been fixed in newer games like Saint's Row and GTA 4, but it has given birth to another problem. A lack of mid mission check points, I hate starting a mission and having to drive half way across the city to be killed in a shoot out and have to repeat the whole process from the beginning. Any mission that has more then one section to it (ex: get into shootout, then escape from cops) really should have a checkpoint.





Designing missions for sandbox titles have 2 different takes on their design. First are missions that can be placed into the game space, such as a shootout on a street corner. CrackDown for the 360 is set up this way as each criminal leader was basically plopped down into one of the major structures in the city. This gives more freedom to the player on how to accomplish the mission, but limits the complexity and possible story of the mission. For open world games that give the player access to a variety of skills and powers these missions can be enjoyable , but will keep the majority of the story development (if there is a huge story) to cutscenes.


The other type are heavily scripted missions that for the most part pull the player into their own little world. The best examples are of course any story mission in the GTA series. The advantage is that a really creative designer can make some very interesting missions, the down side is that you really kill replayability of them in the process (note by replayability I mean different ways to play it, not replaying it because the mission is so good).



Playing GTA 4 now, while I can't help but be amazed with the scope of the world RockStar has made, it makes it that much more jarring when something pulls me out of it. Such as getting used to the driving model, or having to drive across 2 islands as the only source of Internet is in one cafe. One thing that is starting to annoy me abit is the overall juvenile sense of the comedy in the game. I don't like to hear expletives every 5 second when I'm playing a game, one thing it just reeks of immaturity and second it's weird to have family around hearing this. The problem with GTA 4 is that besides Niko every guy has the same attitude it seems. I know that RockStar can do smart humor or create intelligent characters, San Andereas had a well developed African American as the star. Which is why I'm so sad that the comedy is pretty crude in GTA 4 at the point I'm at. Quite frankly I want to see an open world game with a strong female protagonist, not someone who looks like a porn star, or someone who is pretty much anti men, but someone in between.


After spending time with both Saint's Row and GTA 4 I can see a different mindset present in each. Saint's Row was created to be more gamey, with non realistic side missions and an over the top style. GTA 4 however is set to be an experience and less gamey, you can't unlock super versions of weapons or go on insurance fraud missions (which would be awesome if they were in GTA 4). Both however from my point of view need to add in more elements of exploration and give me more options to do in the city.


So where does that leave us ? I think the problem that I've seen in most open world games is that not one of the elements is developed enough that it could stand on it's own without the others. It makes it that when the elements work together well the game is amazing, when it doesn't the game sucks. From that I can deduce that if we get the developers behind Gran Tursimo, Ninja Gaiden Black, and Shadow of the Colossus together to create an open world game. We would either have the greatest open world game in existence, or a jumbled up mess that cost millions of dollars. Either way it's a chance I'm willing to take :)


Josh

Why at last, ninjas are better then pirates.

My interest in PC gaming has been dwindling over the last year and one of those problems is copy protection. Thanks to being a multi platform gamer, I have way less tolerance towards PC gaming barrier crap then most gamers. If something about your PC game pisses me off, then it's just a 5 second walk downstairs to my consoles.



Copy protection in it's current form has only one purpose, to piss off the legitimate customers who buy games. We have all heard the stories of people cracking the copy protection within hours of a PC launch title, so they get to enjoy a copy protection less gaming experience while us schmucks who buy legal copies of games to support our developers get the shaft. For the record I have never pirated a game in my entire life with the only exception being X-Com, and that decision was made after spending 4 years trying to find a copy of it that could work on my newer computer. I don't even download the no-CD patches that are released.



On the other side I no longer buy PC games that require copy protection to play, and I have a strict no Steam policy as well. I've already banned my self from ever buying another Company of Heroes expansion or game from the crap they pulled by actually adding on copy protection to the original version that didn't have it Today I had a chance to buy the expansion that caused all the trouble for $14 and I turned it down. BioShock is already on my list of games I hated, and the copy protection they put on it pushes it into "if I ever meet Ken Levine I may have to punch him" territory.




So now your probably wondering "what the hell do you play on the PC?" I support Cryptic Comet, Shrapnel Games, TellTale Games, Introversion, and lastly StarDock as of right now. I'm a huge supporter of StarDock from the numerous articles their CEO Brad Wardell has done regarding his position on copy protection. To sum them up, he believes to give people a reason to buy his games legit and supports his games with constant updates that can only be gotten thru their download service and with a purchased copy of their game. I want to go into more detail in that in a bit, but I want to address something everyone is wondering about by now.



If I support Stardock's service then why do I condemn Steam? Simply because it doesn't do anything to reward the customers for buying thru them. I hate having to have Steam on to play any games I buy, compared to StarDock I can easily never turn on their service and still be able to play any game I bought thru it. Which brings Steam up to the annoyance factor of regular copy protection on PC games for me. There is also the fact that it doesn't feel that I own these games, something that is not a problem with StarDock. I have not played any thing in the Orange box, and will continue that way while I have to have steam on my computer to play them. Yes I'm paranoid and private, haven't you read my first entry here ?!





Now back to StarDock and why I love them so. They have taken the step that I think is the best form of copy protection, providing a qualitative benefit to their customers for buying games from them. I know when I buy a StarDock product , that it will be supported by their company and that free stuff is sure to come. I've played a few games online with Brad (and kicked his but at Rise of Legends if I do say so my self, which maybe I should add to my resume ...) and he always comes off as an intelligent person who understands the market. Having a fan base that supports your company is a goal that all designers should strive for. It means that they are less likely to be swayed by negative reviews and will guarantee sales when your game is released. Yet Brad has also talked about the reason why Stardock can do this.





Their market isn't a highly pirated one, strategy titles attract for the most part , more matured gamers then the first person shooter genre. Which does raise an interesting question, if StarDock works on a first person shooter and releases it the same way as their strategy titles, will it sell well and not be as pirated? My views are conflicted here, on one hand I am against all copy protection on my games, on the other however I will concede that the first person shooter genre is more popular then the strategy genre at this time. Which raises my next point, what is the solution to copy protection?





I think StarDock is going in the right direction, but their solution is somewhat limited towards a smaller genre then others. I have thought up several points that need to be address to create successful copy protection. First is that copy protection on the user's end is faulty, if the user can get access to it then it is crackable no matter what the publishers say. Moving the copy protection to a one time check by the developers is the right way to go and getting rid of the CD requirement in games. Next, is rewarding the player for supporting the company. Most games aren't really designed for additional content such as the games from StarDock, but there are ways to reward legitimate customers. First is simply a price cut, instead of spending $50 in a store for a PC game, why not $40 if you buy directly from the developer's site? Another side of this solution is to only give patches out to people who register their legal copies of the game, I think this could really hurt the problem of piracy as we all know computer games can be pretty fickle with hardware configurations.





Third is better presentation, I want full color manuals and a greater attention to detail in designing them. One of my favorite companies is Double Jump Books that go the extra mile in their strategy guides, that should be the case with the actual packaging of the game as well don't you think ? Make it worth my while to buy your games and show me you actual give a damn about the customers. This one I will admit could be hard to implement, as I'm not knowledgeable on the pricing of full colored manuals.





Fourth, online access for offline purchased products. I just learned today that Blizzard is going to allow customers who bought their games to enter in their CD keys online and download non copy protected versions of their games. I could go over to Blizzard and kiss everyone responsible for this decision , but it could be pretty awkward afterwards. If the publisher is going to require copy protection in the store, then allow me to download a free version from your site minus the protection after giving the CD key, you know I bought a legitimate copy now give me the respect I deserve and not label me as a potential pirate.



With these suggestions game developers should earn alot of goodwill from their customers. Which in my opinion is more important then a few more sales thanks to some evil copy protection. My biggest complaint about copy protection is that we are part of the video game industry, which is one of if not the most creative industry on the planet. Your telling me that we're not creative enough to find a better solution towards copy protection !? I think right now every game developer except for those working at the companies I mention need to go stand in the corner right now. My perfect vision is that in the future all gamers have their own gamer account that they can enter in CD keys from any game and be able to download them protection free from this one utility or website if you don't want it on your computer.




Now finally after that long discussion I can get to the meaning of the title. Pirating is the phrase used for stealing games, and thanks to them the developers behind Titan Quest, one of my favorite hack and slash rpgs went out of business. For that reason ninjas are cooler then pirates, you don't hear the phrase " I ninjaed the new Grand Theft Auto game" do you? In fact the only example I can think of for ninjas is me dressing up as a ninja and infiltrating Maxis to get an early copy of Spore.

Josh


5/6 update: Wow I pulled a bit of Nostradamus as the copy protection for Spore and Mass Effect was announced yesterday, and now I'm pissed. I guess I'm really going to have to sneak into Maxis and steal a copy protection-less version of Spore to play.