Philly IGDA Demo Night.

Quick entry today, while I'm writing up another entry. Last night was the IGDA Philly chapter meeting, to look at some game demos by members of the group. I have to say that I was really impressed with the ideas shown, and secretly curse myself for not thinking of them sooner (I'm looking at Jon Demo's game shown).


I think as someone who spends his time coming up with game ideas, it's interesting to see how people are inspired and come up with their own ideas. One game demo was using a technology that reads where oxygen is more focused in the brain (IE concentration) and is used as a game mechanic. The team wanted to bring the device but the company said that it would have counted as human testing, which would be find by me as I tried to sell myself to science a few months ago.

The other major highlight for me was looking at Three Rings (makers of Puzzle Pirates) new project whirled. The plan is to create a system to allow people to play and upload mini games, design achievements for them and buy a variety of stuff using currency. I created an account for it under the name Jab (I hope there aren't too many of them) and it shows a lot of promise. I really need something to force me to learn Action Script 3.0 and start working on creating some projects. Hopefully this will be just the kick in the ass I need.

Lastly I just want to apologize for last night and for subsequent meetings to everyone if I don't remember your names. I can remember faces after one or two meetings, names however take me forever to learn. It's nothing personal, just my own crazy brain having trouble.


Josh.

Kick, punch, it's all in the mind.

For this entry I'm going to look at the fighting game genre (sorry Parappa the Rapper fans). The fighting genre is one of the few genres that I can say I followed from it's birth to today, and had a chance to play the variety of titles that have shaped it. From Clay Fighter, to Way of the Warrior and everything in between, there was always a way to beat the crap out of someone. To me fighting games fall into one of three styles of game play: combo intensive, special moves, and free flow. Which I'll be going into detail about before I look at the big name games of the genre. Just to clarify , for this entry I'm talking specifically about fighting games that are one on one matches, so games like Power Stone or the Smash Brothers' series aren't going to be looked at.

The style of game play basically sets the stage for how gamers are going to play and master their respective games. Combo intensive refers to games that special moves are either limited or left out, and the majority of damage done is by combos. The combos require the player to set up the opponent to be hit by a multi button sequence of attacks to dish out major damage to their opponents. Anything that isn't part of a combo string may be just one or two quick hits, sometimes just pushing the punch button in rapid succession counts as a small combo. Expert players can set up devastating combos that can usually finish off an opponent if the whole thing connects. Mastering these games is about memorizing the sequences and having the dexterity to pull them off. Tekken and to a lesser extent the Dead or Alive series are good examples of this style. My issue with this style is that the game play is really rigid, no room for improvisation and requires the player to use the combos made up by the designers or expert players. Taking things to the extreme Killer Instinct had massive combo strings that activated a finishing combo that usually hits someone over a 100 times.


Next up are games that fall into the special move category. In this one, it's more about using a collection of special moves to defeat opponents. Special moves refer to movement and button sequences to unleash unique attacks, combos if any are more relegated to expert matches . Memorization is once again king as with no knowledge of special attacks, the player is forced to use the basic punch/kick attacks to win fights. Obviously Mortal Kombat is the big example here as well as other classic fighting games such as Street Fighter, and Primal Rage among others. The same complaint I have for combo intensive is seen here, these games are about using a rigid system to win matches. The problem is worse as it's easier to figure out combo sequences as you can deduce if your onto something. With special moves all your left with is either the move working or just a regular punch or kick going off.

Finally we have free form fighting games, and my current favorite type of fighting game. Instead of special moves that have unique effects, here different attacks could do something special along with doing damage, such as knock back, attacking low,setting opponent up for a throw, etc. Characters have a huge amount of combos available to them, but instead of only being able to use them and nothing else, the move list is so great that just about every button combination can start something. The part that I like the most about these games is how characters are developed to be different from each other compared to other titles. These titles are less about memorizing entire move lists, and instead on focusing on moves that the player likes and working on advance techniques such as countering. The Soul Calibur and Virtua Fighter series are the best examples of this type.


I was never a fan of the first two styles, since this was a time when the arcade was the still the best platform for the genre, meant that there was no way to really find these special moves or long combo strings in a play through. The free form style is the youngest of the three by one or two years starting with the original Virtua Fighter I think. Recently, the last Mortal Kombat title went heavy on rigid combos and the whole thing did not play well in my opinion. Watching footage of Mortal Kombat VS the DC universe actually looked good and I'll be keeping my eye on it. A few years back I tried Tekken for the first time, and hated it. Unlike Dead or Alive which is combo heavy but still lets you work on advance techniques. Tekken felt that all you had were these incredibly long and complex combo strings to work with.

Playing Virtua Fighter for the first time with VF4 Evo, I was impressed with the diverse characters available. Give me quality over quantity any day, and it was interesting to see how playing with Akira was different from Shun Di and so on. I'm waiting for my copy of VF 5 to get here, and I'll be practicing with Goh once again.
I've also spent time with the Naruto and Dragon Ball Z fighting games on the PS2, and they seem to be similar to free form game play even though there are special moves and attacks. The main arsenal of a player are punches ,kicks, and advance techniques available.

To me the fighting genre is the best genre for watching competitive gaming, watching expert players duke it out is great . I've been watching the competitive gaming series and I like watching the Dead or Alive matches the best as it's the easiest to see who is winning or the variety of styles present. By now you should have figured out that I think the future of fighting games is with free form styled game play, I don't think I'm going to be picking up Street Fighter 4 when it hits as going back to special moves doesn't sound to inviting to me. I'm interested to see how much more Sega can do with the Virtua Fighter franchise above adding new characters, as the core mechanics have been pretty solid for a while. Lastly I wonder when we'll see another evolution in the genre , if that is possible from free form .


Josh

The same tale , told differently each time.

In a moment of serendipity Corvus was talking about how the movie " The Big Lebowski" is similar to "The Hero's Journey".here while I've spent the last few weeks reading two books by Joesph Campbell (the man behind the idea), "The Power of Myth" and " The Hero with a Thousand Faces". I've always had a love of mythology from tenth grade English class and as I've been trying to improve my story telling ability it's fascinating to see the building blocks behind an epic story. I'm finding myself now when remembering stories both from video games and books saying to myself " that's a shadow, that's a trickster, that guy just refused the call". The examples Campbell uses in his books of myths around the world are both interesting and eerie in their similarities. Which leads me to the first point of this entry, getting some fresh blood for backdrops in video games.


Mythology is a very rich canvas of stories and characters, and yes Greek is a popular (and somewhat overused) source of inspiration, I would love to see games set in other stories. There have been a few games set in Norse mythology and even rarer Egyptian mythos, but there is so much more out there to draw inspiration from. Okami on the Ps2 and Wii is the only example I can think of that used Japanese mythology for it's story and backdrop. The only example of Chinese mythology would be the game Jade Empire, while interesting was still just somewhat of a backdrop used to tell the story and not the drive of the story. I think the fact that games are using more then just Greek mythology as a source now is good, and I hope to see more used in the future. I couldn't talk about mythology in games without mentioning Age of Mythology which brought Greek, Egyptian, and Norse mythology against each other and was one of my favorite RTS titles and used the source material well to create the various sides and myth units available. Moving from mythology, to the other lesson Campbell goes into detail about, the path of a hero.

The other point which I've said before in my look at character growth, is that I still feel that we could do more with story telling in out games, specifically in the RPG genre. Besides character growth which I talked about, I am tired of the same "beat the baddie and everyone is happy" ending, we need some Greek tragedy in our stories in my opinion. One thing about RPGS is that in most of them we never see the effects of our actions, whether it's saving a village or stopping the evil in a land. The cities and people remain the same. Watching the world around the player grow along with them would be a nice touch, as seen in Okami as the world becomes more colorful as the player pushes back the darkness. One aspect of the hero's journey that we never really see in RPGS is the return part of the tale where the hero brings back whatever reward was earned to society, most games end with the final boss dead and everyone celebrating. I think the reason for this is that in a lot of games the lore of the world is never really establish which keeps us from connecting with it to have a satisfying ending.

I'm not finished with " The Hero With a Thousand Faces" to go on further about the concepts ,but for fans of mythology or just the structure of stories both books are a great read.


Josh

A cross section of things that go bump in the night.

Well I've been promising a look at the horror genre for some time, and I haven't managed to come up with a better title for it so here goes. Over at the igda forums there is a discussion about the best horror examples in games, and what makes a good horror title (link). It's interesting to read the responses and pants wetting moments from other gamers. As someone who now fears hospitals, schools, office buildings, and just about everything in a town thanks to Silent Hill, I have to wonder how I would design a horror title.


The horror genre has been around for some time, you could say that Alone in the Dark was the first example in the US, while technically Japanese gamers had Sweet Home a horror/rpg title as their first taste of it. There are some common elements between horror titles, usually some kind of disturbing sound track and creatures that fall on the "wtf" list. With the numerous titles over the years, there are a few complaints that are still around.


First are the controls, I know it's not exactly terrifying to control a character with a quad rocket launcher, Hulk like strength, and martial arts prow less, but can we get away from the ten year old girls with dementia, vertigo, depth perception issues, and a broken leg? I no longer find it scary to put 14 year old girls up against nightmarish ghouls and demons, I like that Silent Hill gives us adults most of the time. Then we have games that still make our characters control like tanks, and that has yet to change for the majority of horror titles. I should be scared by the fact that something bad is around the corner, not that my character can't turn around in less then 3 seconds. The horror genre for the most part seems to be stuck in a rut, relying on the same tricks and elements to scare us with rare exception.

I've yet to play the Condemned series, it's on my list (or someone could send me a free copy) but I think that is where I like the horror genre to move onto. Give me characters that can hold their own for the most part , and put them up against creatures or people who are as strong or stronger then they are. Don't make me weaker by messing with my controls, work on the enemies. I've been playing around in my head for a first person horror game idea. The player is alone on a space station with at least 10 alien creatures, each one different in every way. The player needs to find a way to escape and/or fight them while out maneuvering them. The player can use the station's gravity controls or even escape into space for a few minutes to try to evade them. The really powerful weapons are few and far between with a few shots for them leaving the player to flee, or fight to wound the enemy long enough to get away for the most part. Another issue I have is that game designers over saturate us to the various beasts, by half way through the game we've seen the same 3 armed 2 headed creature so many times that it no longer scares us. I should be constantly saying "what the hell is that thing, and why is it trying to bite me?"


On the igda forums I gave an example of a moment I would like to see put into a video game which I'll be quoting now "One example I saw that I would love to work into a game is from Evil Dead 2 (the movie not the game). Near the end of the movie Ash is heading down into the cellar with a shotgun in one hand and a chainsaw for his other arm. In most horror games with a set up like this, there would be no need to feel scared. Yet this a tense moment, even with these weapons Ash is still afraid of something attacking from behind or even fighting something period." I want to see characters who are bad asses, yet completely terrified or unnerved at the events that are happening.

Resident Evil 4 is considered to be the best game in the series so far and a great step forward for the franchise in my opinion. My only problem is that the tank like controls of the series are still there. I would love to be able to move and shoot in a Resident Evil game. I do have high hopes for the new Fatal Frame game, not only because it's being done by GrassHopper Studios (makers of Killer 7 and No More Heroes), but it will use the Wii-Mote for aiming at all the creepy ghosts .

Maybe it's just me, after all the zombies, ghosts, demons, whatever the hells from Silent Hill I'm just not as scared anymore by the horror genre. I was reasonably calm playing BioShock except for a few fits of anger but I've talked about that already. This does raise an important question ,given my own disturbed psyche and what would scare me, what would people say about a horror game designed by me? I figure one of two options, either it will be so scary that it will make grown men go back to nightlights for awhile, or no one would be scared and they would question my sanity(more so then normal).

So I leave you with two important pieces of information, if your in a Japanese village and a girl in a kimono starting laughing hysterically at you, get the hell out of there, there's a possibility that she is an evil spirit who wants to use your soul for some kind evil ritual. Also if your radio starts making static for no reason, be afraid, be very afraid


Josh (who finally came up with a decent title for this entry)

The dollars and cents behind adding game content.

These past few weeks have not been kind to HellGate London, and things have hit rock bottom this week as the majority of the employees at FlagShip Studios have been let go and the game will still be available online, but no new content or support will be given. What's worse is that Mythos, the free to play cartoonish version of Diablo 2 that actually looked good is now on "hiatus" or aka "no one is there to work on it". I've heard discussions over the years of estimating the amount of game time to the money spent on it. With subscription payment options for games these days, this kind of talk is all the more important.

Personality I hate subscription based games, hence why I'm not playing World of Warcraft right now. First is that I hate being charged for something that I'm not using when I'm not logged on, and the only way I feel I get my money's worth is if I play that game all the time. As someone who likes to switch off to different games during the day, having to play just one game doesn't suit my style at all. There's also the fact that I hate paying to play with other people but that could just be my introverted nature rearing it's head. I've also seen payment options that I prefer over the subscription option which I'll be getting to in a few minutes. Now let's talk about what HellGate did wrong.


For those not up to speed with the history of the game, HellGate was developed by one of the team members behind Diablo 2 and was billed as the spiritual successor to it. One year before launch this was on the top of my must play list, yet one hell of a buzz kill was announced a few months before launch. HellGate was to have two ways of playing it online, a regular version and a subscription version, that sounds ok but it became bad fast. Subscription players had access to the following: more character slots, better customer support, new content down the line, access to new areas and equipment. Having customer support be used as a reason for people to pay is just screwing the customer in my opinion. Originally Flagship said that they would deliver new classes and content every three months with small updates every month. Since the game has been released last October, no new classes were released and I believe one maybe two content updates were made. Incase that wasn't bad enough the following kicked the game off my list, if you unsubscribe any subscriber content you had would become locked from use until you resubscribe. To put it bluntly, HellGate was doomed right out of the gate (pun intended).


Not all game genres are the same, and creating content for them is different. Rpgs are some of the hardest to create new content for, just look at all the changes and revisions World of Warcraft has had. Action RPGs do not lend themselves well for new content down the line. The prime reasons to play them is the never ending cycle of beating up enemies, getting better loot, and making yourself more powerful. Everything else is just filler , I don't want to stop and fish for ingredients while hunting for Diablo . The reasons to play an action RPG are also the downfall of the genre, these games are very repetitive and you can burn out playing them pretty fast. Both the positives and negatives hurt the chance of making action rpgs into a subscription based genre.


Unlike full scaled MMOs, action rpgs stay to the above mentioned reasons meaning to keep players paying for it, requires a huge amount of content to be created fast. There really isn't anything else to do in the game world and players will become burnt out fast compared to a game like World of Warcraft which has a lot for the player to do. There was no way in hell (no pun intended) HellGate could produce content to keep players entertain and paying for in a month's time. Hence why it took so long to get one update going, and all in the meantime people were giving them money for nothing. Also whatever they could produce for the game would still be the same type of content in the game already, and MMOs have a greater variety for a few dollars more a month. Removing access to content is just a slap in the face and really doesn't make sense if the player is only playing the game in the single player. FlagShip was attempting to do something new to the genre like ArenaNet with Guild Wars yet Guild Wars came out on top.


ArenaNet was smart, they knew the same thing I know that an action RPG cannot be shoehorned into the traditional pricing scheme of a MMO and that creating content cannot be feasible in such a short development time. Their strategy was to make the game free to play completely, and instead released full priced expansions which would equal the cost if you were subscribing in that time. Unfortunately they realized that they couldn't create the amount of content they wanted in that time and had to release it at a later date, but unlike HellGate players they were still playing it for free in the meantime. The other advantage of an expansion based pricing model is designing it for different players. One expansion boasted more PVP options for players, while another had a full PVE campaign. Each had a small amount of everything but was mainly focused on one aspect of game play. HellGate tried to capitalized on the success of World of Warcraft and failed. Besides expansion based models there is one other I think could work for action rpgs.


I'm a fan of the game Albatross 18 and played it for some time. The game is basically an online version of the Hot Shots Golf series. What the designers did was make the game so that new courses were free, and that people could win games without spending money. There are two currencies in the game, one is earned by playing games and can buy some items, the other is bought with real money that can be used to buy rarer items and new characters. I think this kind of token pricing model could work for action rpgs, lets say that areas of the game are locked behind pay booths that require a specific kind of currency to get into. Once paid for they will remain unlocked for that account forever. There should be enough content for fans to get their money's worth, but the extra stuff is for players who want more.

I feel bad for the designers, artists, and programmers at FlagShip , it was a good idea that was done in the wrong way. I have no remorse however for the management who went ahead and promoted the pricing model, as they should have realized the same thing that we did. That an action rpg is not the best genre for subscription based gaming. It's a shame that a causality of these events was probably going to be the best thing to come out of FlagShip studios, Mythos which looked to capture the joy of Diablo 2. I am left to wonder what will Blizzard do with Diablo 3, talking to my friend the other day there is a strong possibly of having some kind of pricing model for playing online due to immense popularity of the series. I wonder how closely they've watched the success of Guild Wars and the failure of HellGate and how that will figure in.


Josh

Adding that extra spice of humanity to character development.

For animated series it has been a very good month, for me it means that two of my favorites are finished or going to be. While both are as different as night and day, they both feature one element that really elevates each series to something incredible, true character growth which I've yet to see any video game really accomplish this.The series are Death Note and Avatar, calling either one a cartoon would be a huge disservice, as both are more mature then most of the programming on other channels. I'm going to try to show these examples without spoiling any of the main plot lines but there will be minor spoilers.

Death Note has been my favorite anime for some time now, it's a tale of a very deadly game of cat and mouse between two amazing characters with one of the best villains I've seen anywhere. For this example however I'm going to talk about a minor character, Matsuda. Since the introduction to this character he has always been a fairly insignificant character. The rest of the cast ignores him and leaves him to do the menial work during the investigation. The first time he tries to stand out and prove himself to his fellow detectives, he not only almost blows the investigation but almost gets himself killed in the process. Which puts him back into the backdrop for the rest of series until the very end. In a very shocking moment not only does he prove himself, but he finally steps out of the shadow and has a major impact on the story. I can't say what he did to finally have his moment, but it made my jaw drop for the entire scene.


Moving on to Avatar, while the series is just about over it does feature one of the most impressive character arcs I've seen. I'm going to be talking about Zuko, who has had one hell of a transformation throughout the series . He was introduced as the antagonist and hunter of the hero, and came off as the stereotypical jerk . As time goes on we see the events that have shaped the life of this character, both the positive and negative forces at work that made him who he is. The series does an excellent job of expanding on his back story and just how conflicted he is about what he wants in life and what he's doing. The best part is that while he's growing as a character, he never changes like a flick of a switch but grows slowly with each encounter. With the final few episodes we get to see another side of Zuko which is not only funny to watch, but really shows who he is and it's a shame that we're only going to see a few episodes of this side of his personality.

With that out of the way it's time to get to the point of this entry, adding in a true sense of character growth. Time and time again in games we have one dimensional characters who may be interesting, but stay the same way throughout the story. Any changes to these characters are either so obvious that it doesn't come as a shock, or so quick that there is no meaning in this event. Once again I blame Bioware, as supposed experts on RPGs I've yet to see them actually develop a character who could be considered real(don't even get me started on Kotor,and I haven't played Mass Effect yet). Square Enix has also not made a realistic character in any of the Final Fantasy games either. Yes characters may become good or evil but we're never really shown the events leading up to this and the fallout of this action from both the person and the people around them.

I want to see characters grow personality wise across a game, no more instant transformations but a gradual growth from the events . I want to see characters really have a heroic call moment or a real fall from grace into villainy. One problem I think is the length of games. Having something like this in a 8 hour game would be too fast and really cheapen the moment, which means we'll have to save this for either 50 hour rpgs or stories split among titles in a series. I believe this element is missing from game writing whether by a design choice, or that no one has really attempted to make a game with this type of growth.

I hoped that the JRPG genre would be able to do this, as their games are more often interactive books but there hasn't been any moments like what I have in mind that I've seen.

Josh

Why "Grand Theft Sesame Street" is not happening.

A few months ago I was reading a book on how the toy industry works, and while it is a creative industry similar to the games industry, there is one major difference. In the toy industry branding is king, better to have a toy or board game involving Dora the Explorer or whatever Saturday morning cartoon is popular now rather then something unique and unheard of. Contrast that with the games industry where games that are based on popular movies, comics, or TV shows are horrible and mostly avoided by gamers.

I think before I go on I should define brands for the sake of this entry. I'm talking about IPs that came from outside of the games industry: comic books, movies, TV, toys, etc. I'm not saying that games like GTA or Mario are not brands but they were created inside the games industry.

When working on a licensed game, certain rules have to be followed such as keeping true to the IP and keeping the game from going too far away from the IP. Those rules don't apply to unique titles where anything can go, just look at Killer 7 or Katamari Dammacy for that. I think those rules are one of the main elements as to why most licensed games fail.

The first sign of trouble is that when dealing with licenses most often the cost of just getting them (along with the voice actors) takes away most of the development funds. Which most often leaves us with a buggy or derivative game, look at the first Matrix game for this. Another is that license game = dumbing down so that everyone can play it. That sounds really harsh but when you look at the difference between the games based on Spider Man 2 and Spider Man 3 you can see why I'm upset. Yet there are three shining examples that come to mind when the license worked.


First is the Chronicles of Riddick, which as a first was the first game based on a movie (or to be released along side) to do better then the movie . The developers took an interesting character (the above mentioned Riddick), and expanded on his back story and basically gave us an interactive portion of his story that could have been its own movie. Having the full cooperation of Vin Diesel helped a lot, the game had some of the best voice overs I've heard in a title. The game also pulled no punches in the game play, instead of giving us mind numbing derivative crap we've seen before. The game was a well designed balance of stealth, gun play and hand to hand fighting which I believe was the first FPS game to deliver that. The game was so good that I think we're getting an updated version for the 360 soon.

Next was The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction (not the game based on the first movie). Instead of shoehorning the experience into a movie or comic book story, the game basically gave us the Hulk, a city (and desert), and things to smash while still keeping true to the comics. The Hulk wasn't a weakling or had to do stealth missions, he smashed and bashed everything and everyone in the game. Boss fights brought characters from the comics for fan service and the game was one of the most fun sand box experiences I've had. The newest Hulk title I've heard doesn't quite hit the mark.

Finally is the game that not only was the perfect use of a license, but I think the best licensed game to ever be released so far, Viva Pinata yeah you read that correctly. Viva Pinata quite frankly is an anomaly, the game had every sign that it was going to be bad. The game was based on a children's cartoon, was developed by Rare which no offense to the people working there ,were not exactly on a hot streak of great games. Lastly the game had next to nothing in terms of advertising. Yet the game worked, it took a unique IP and developed game play for it that was something not done before. Basically a light city builder, the game was designed that both children (the fans of the show) and older gamers could play the game well. The game features numerous rewards and hidden mechanics that the casual younger gamer would never find or think about, but there is an addictive one more reward feel for us. There is something serene about building your garden up, and keeping your pinata alive, and besides their so cute (enjoy that, as that will be the last time I say that on this blog.)

I think the trick to making a good license game is to not rely on the license for bringing in the sales, but the actual gameplay. The license should be the icing on the cake not the cake itself, a lesson the creators of the Dragon Ball Z and Naruto games are slowly learning. While watching the final episodes of the series Avatar this week, I would love to have an excellent action game set in this world, not the same button mashing game made for little children.

For the future, I'm looking forward to the GhostBusters game even though my license game senses are tingling I really hope that this turns out alright.



Josh


note: Before anyone says it, I didn't include Spiderman 2 among the best licensed games as it would be #4 on my list, and the ones mentioned are the top 3 in my opinion.

There's no I in game design... (well there is, but you get the point).

Told you I was going to make an entry on that line. One of the biggest leaps from just thinking about game design to designing games is to get away from your own sense of ego as it were. To say that I come up with game ideas constantly is an understatement, I think in my life time I've either hit or come close to 100 game ideas I would like to make. With that said I can say with utmost certaintiy that I've put the majority of them in the scrap pile.

I can't say for certain if they were absolute crap, or the greatest game ideas that never were. The tipping point was the fact that I really couldn't see anyone enjoying them except for me. The gameplay could have been so obtused that only the person who designed it (IE me) would understand and like it, or the story so disturbing or esoteric that it would turn everyone away from the game .

Here's an example of the latter, one idea I had, was player controlling someone who would go through several stages of insanity, which would lead to violent actions by the character including canniblism . Each stage would alter the person's abilites and tactics available, and it would require the player to make hard choices to go from one stage to another. I don't need to go further as I doubt no one would be listening at that point and would be ready to form an angry mob against me.

One of the core elements of a game designer is the ability to look outside their own little world with their ideas. A game has to be able to be enjoyed by other people for it to be a game, if not then you have a product that just wasted miliions of dollars. There has to be some element to the game that will attract fans or newcomers to it.The other aspect to this is that the games industry is in fact a business. Yes it can be fun and creative, but it is still a business. For any business to succeed you need to have products that the consumers will want to buy. You can't just make a game that you and 3 friends will enjoy. There is a difference however in making some something generic that it hits the bargain bins fast, and making something unique and never before seen that sells well.

You can still be creative with your ideas, but you need to make them so that someone other then yourself would be able to enjoy them. Whether that means toning down some of the complexity or creating a UI that a novice can understand. Sometimes it could just mean telling an engaging story and damm the interesting and unique gameplay. I don't know the magic recipe for amazing games, and I doubt anyone does. Just remember when your creating that game, that your not the only one who's going to play it.


Josh

When daydreaming becomes designing.

Not much has been happening this week for me (if someone wants to send me a free video game to review that would be nice ), I've started working on my next design document and it's at 10 pages and going strong. I don't like to start typing up an idea until it is fully cemented in my head and this a challenge ,and the reason for this entry.


Typing up your game idea serves two important purposes. First you need to make sense of the chaos of your thoughts. Sure in your head having a FPSMMORTS with survival horror thrown in sounds good, but how the hell will that translate to a game play experience? As your thinking about what the player is doing, your probably not thinking about how it's going to happen. Just saying that the player is going to run around shooting aliens does not make for a well thought out game idea. In order to move from day dreaming to actual designing you need to start putting together the game play systems and mechanics.

The 2nd purpose is to look at this idea on paper, that doesn't sound too important but trust me it is. In your head I bet the idea is the best one in the world and that no one could ever beat it right ? Writing it down allows you to look at it without the rose tinted specs of your mind. I've thought up dozens of ideas that sounded good in my head at first, but eventually petered out as the game just didn't sound exciting enough for other people. That last line is very important to what it means to be a game designer and I think I'll dedicate an entry to that coming up.


Writing up the design document is a big deal for me, as it's time to get serious. In my head I'm not thinking about controls, enemy types, and game length. When I'm typing at the computer however I need to start thinking about all that. As I mentioned above this helps me focus my thoughts. Your not just advertising this idea in your head anymore, now you need to make it so that you can convince people that this could be something big. Here are two game ideas, let's see which one you guys prefer.

" Oh oh, it's a FPS where you run around shooting demons and, you can do something that sucks out their souls to give you stuff. You'll have so many weapons to use."


Somewhere I think Tom Sloper is having chest pains, now let's look at this one.

" The title will be a free roaming open world FPS taking place in a version of the netherworld (less fire and brimstone and more along the lines of PainKiller). The main character upon defeating an enemy will absorb their souls that can be used to enhanced their abilities. When the player chooses to leave the netherworld they will be able to use the souls to power up. If the player is defeated before they leave then they will lose everything they had earned in the netherworld adding a rogue like element to the game play."

Now tell me, which sounds better to show off your designing skills?


Josh

(FYI this is not one of my ideas, and I came up with this example in less then a day.)

The difference between cheating the system, and breaking it in two.

One game mechanic I love is when designers reward the player for breaking the rules and the best genre that emphasizes this are strategy role playing games (SRPGS). My favorite company for SRPGS is NipponIchi (or NIS America in the US). If there is a system seller that is going to force me to buy a PS3 , it's not going to be Metal Gear Solid 4 but Disgaea 3.

Disgaea is a very important game for SRPG fans, it's the first game that put NipponIchi on the map in the US. Which also gave them the reason to open the US branch and bring more games over to the US. Second, it was the first game to have a guide created by DoubleJumpBooks, which make my favorite guides and put them on the map as well.

Before Disgaea, Final Fantasy Tactics was considered the best SRPG on the market, but it wasn't until I played Disgaea that I fell in love with the genre, and with Nis's game play style. What makes Disgaea work for a lot of fans is just how far you can delve into the game play systems. Yes Disgaea is a SRPG meaning alot of your time is spent in turn based battles between another group of enemies. Yet there are a lot of other systems in place which not only add complexity to the game, but really breaks it open for those willing to go the extra mile.


First we have the dark assembly, which are a group of demons which run the netherworld of the game. Any character in your army can go in front of them to pass a bill, from making the game easier or harder to unlocking bonus levels. Depending on the type of bill and the rank of the character, will determine the difficulty of getting it passed. Items can be used to bribe members who are against it or you can just try to beat up all the naysayers. Speaking about characters, you can transmigrate your character into either a higher version of their class or into a new class. They will keep the skills from the original class when they move and will get bonus stat points to be added in. Transmigrating them to a higher version may start them back at level 1, but the stat points and higher class really makes them as strong as someone a few levels above them. At one point I had characters at level 50 who were as strong as level 100 characters.

But what really starts your jump from casually playing to advanced is the item world. Every item in the game from recovery items to that bad ass sword has a randomized dungeon inside of it. The better the item, the tougher the enemies are going to be inside, and once you start your descent you can only leave either via an item or at the end of every tenth floor. The rewards for going into items are great, this is an excellent place to level your characters up and find rare items as rewards. Characters called specialist can be rescued and transferred to other items and give that item a benefit. For every floor completed the base stats of the item in question will be increased, turning that bad ass sword into an uber bad ass sword. Not only saving you money on buying new equipment but can greatly extend the life of that item.

The brilliance of this, is that the preceding systems are just optional for starting out to regular players, and the game can be beaten without using them (the item world is used for a few map requirements but that's it.)For fans of Disgaea you know that I'm skipping the geo panel system, the reason is that while important to the game it is not really the subject of this entry. For players who want to get more out of Disagea and attempt some of the post game craziness (where enemies with levels in the thousands are) you'll need to rely on the item world, and dark assembly to stand a chance.

Back to the subject of this entry, cheating in most games is when the player goes against the wishes of the designer and renders alot of the game experiences moot. In games like Disgaea however, the designers encouraged you to break the game by created over powered characters using the systems above and using that as the distinction between playing the game to see the end, and mastering the game. The earlier you use these systems the easier the game will be, further proof of the designers rewarding you for learning the game. For those who have read Double Jump Books guides for the various Nis SRPGs they each feature a section on how to create a character or item so powerful that it destroys any sense of difficulty once you've attained them. Doing so requires a huge amount of dedication and mastery of all the game systems, and a perfect challenge/graduation for the expert players.

Games like Disgaea are my favorite as they can be played at different levels of skill, yet still be engaging and fun regardless of your skill level. As an extra bonus Disgaea features undead penguins that explode when you throw them, that's just awesome dood.


Josh

Games live and die, but classics live forever.

Last week I received the 20th anniversary issue of Nintendo Power which brought back a lot of memories. I've been reading NP since I was 3 years old back before the Internet, and I still prefer to get my gaming news and information that way (that will be further discussed in another entry). There are two parts in the magazine that inspired me for this entry.


First was an interview with the creator of Mega Man, Keiji Inafune where he discussed working on Mega Man 9. Now that doesn't sound too out of the ordinary, except for the fact that it will be released on Wii-Ware and look and sound exactly like the original Nintendo versions. I've been a fan of the classic Mega Man series for some time now and have played and beaten every classic Mega Man game on the consoles (Thank you anniversary collection.) . The Mega Man series to me represents some of the best hard core 2d platforming around . The challenge factor was always set on high (remember the laser beams of death in Mega Man 2? ) and demanding expert skills to survive. Granted the story wasn't exactly award winning but the series had some of the best boss fights back in the day. Fans and the creator agree that Mega Man 2 was the best of the series, personality I liked Mega Man 3 for the title theme music.

Next source of inspiration came while I was reading what NP picks as the 20 best games on each Nintendo platform. Which was one hell of a trip down memory lane, as I played the majority of the games on every list (including every game on the SNES list). Now for the reason of this entry and title.The games on the lists (and of course the original Mega Man series) represent some of the best video games of all time. Graphically there is no denying that they can't hold up to today's modern consoles, yet their game play is still excellent today as it was when they first released. Take ActRaiser (not the second one of course) I've yet to see another game take on the god sim genre with action platforming thrown in. There is a reason why Super Mario Bros 3 and World are considered some of the best platforming games of all time. From replaying them these past few days, the level design is amazing and diverse. The feeling reminds me of playing Super Mario Galaxy almost. In most cases it's not an amazing amount of replay ability that makes these games classics, but well polished excellently designed game play that turns these games into classics.

In most cases people have tried to recreate the success and haven't been able to do so. Take X-Com which to this day we've yet to see a game take away it's crown. To me Final Fantasy 6 (or 3 in the US) is the best one in the series and Square Enix hasn't been able to top it since (12 came close in my opinion).Other times the game was an one shot deal that not even the designers have tried to replicate (Blast Corps on the N64 for example). Most often these games struck a chord with a select group of gamers, and became popular enough to attract a following, but not enough that it was seen worthwhile and profitable to create or port a sequel (Just like Star Control2 or EarthBound). I could go on about "why" but I think you can get the point.


I find it almost funny that when magazines put up "best games" lists that they are populated for the most part by classic games. If the list is for console games I bet Super Mario World (or 3),one Final Fantasy game, and at least one Zelda title will make the list, and for the PC I'll bet we'll see a Civilization title, X-Com, and The Sims, so what does that tell us? I don't think quality wise we're slipping but you can't deny the number of unique and original titles have declined over the years. One reason is that the industry is growing up which leaves publishers less likely to give a few million dollars in development money for an unique title. Then there is a fact that back in the 90s we were still creating the genres that have become popularized today. Lastly, publishers want the guaranteed hits, the Halos, GTAs, and World of Warcrafts. I can take some solace in the fact that companies like Nintendo, Sega, and of course Atlus are still supporting the "out there" titles.

I would love to have a game I design become a classic, as to me it is the ultimate reward of a team to have something they've worked on become recognized for greatness that holds up over the years past the platform's life time.

Josh

So many clients so little disk space.

For those reading my past entries on copy protection you know my posiiton regarding client programs for running games. Recently StarDock has released Impulse, their program for updating games and such. I've supported StarDock all these years for their pro gamer position, but this time I'm going after them.


Sins of a Solar Empire was the latest game published by StarDock and a game I was hoping for getting the StarDock treatment of being improved through patches. A week or so ago they announced the big game changing patch for Sins, and that it would not be released stand alone like previous patches. Instead it would require Impulse to update , and that all games from Stardock (either developed or published) in the future will require Impulse as well to maintain. At first I was all prepared to install Impulse, but reading the complaints on the Sins forums snapped me out of it. Reading these complaints mirrored my complaints why I don't have Steam on my computer.


The reason why I don't like secondary programs is similar to the reason why Downloadable content is still iffy in my mind as the future of gaming. When it works and used correctly, it's a wonderful new addition to gaming. However it is easily exploitable by companies looking for a quick buck. I'm not worried at all about Stardock, it's everyone else that worries me. I've seen it happen before, something that worked amazing for one company, copied and made worse by another. Battle.Net was something else , and afterwards every PC gaming company wanted a service like it. Which lead to the massive use of gamespy online services , or companies making their own online service that never worked as good as Battle.Net. I can just picture EA working on their client that would be required for their games. From EA to 2K, and so on and so forth. Also it just seems like a useless step to me that is added in to play PC games.


We're still too early in the digital distribution age of PC gaming to be picking sides as it were. How many more of these programs are going to be created and required by PC companies in the future? We're stepping out of the fry pan and into the fire, moving from requiring the CD and intrusive copy protection in our games, to requiring multiple clients now to play the games we buy. What happened to just installing the game and having it work by itself? I can imagine a horrible future where we'll have just as many clients as games on our computers. Could that happen , possibly but my time machine is in the shop right now for me to go and check.


I have no beef with StarDock and hope the best for them, but I'm worried about supporting something that could be tarnished and ruined by everyone else . The same feeling why I don't support buying games with copy protection, as by doing so I'm voting for these systems that I'm against with my money. I'm still on the fence about installing Impulse onto my computer as it just seems like another wrinkle to playing PC games.


Josh

The degrees of a player beat down.

If only Corvus made a round table discussion on difficulty when I was still actively playing Shiren the Wanderer, I could go on with so many tales of getting my ass killed. Oh well, as a hardcore gamer and hopefully future game designer, hitting the sweet spot for challenge is an admirable goal in my eye. These days quitting a game due to difficulty is not that rare, with numerous titles available it is easy to switch over to something else when things get too rough. Like most gamers I can be very picky about how hard a game should be.

As someone who spent hours playing Ninja Gaiden Black and getting through God of War's god mode ( hardest difficulty level), I can say that there are two different degrees of challenge in most titles . Ninja Gaiden Black is what I call a constant difficulty or "fair hard". In it there are no ifs, ands, or buts about the challenge, everyone from the first ninja you run into to the final demon at the end can and will kick your ass into the ground if you let them. This serves one very important purpose, to keep the player on his/her toes and to be teaching the player the various tactics and skills needed to survive. The difficulty curve in the beginning is huge, and for most players too big to get by, but I found the further I get the easier the game becomes with exception to the boss fights which I'll be getting to now.

The boss fights in Ninja Gaiden Black are more of an ordeal however, they are made to challenge players in the ways of the old school action titles. Pattern recognition and quick reactions are the key to winning these fights. For the most part the first time you fight these guys it will end in failure, as you become acclimated to their attacks and tells. With each fight your gradually learning what you need to do to win. Which leads to two outcomes, either you get so fed up that you quit, or you eventually win. I do agree that not a lot of people find Ninja Gaiden Black's high level of challenge fun, but I take it over God of War any day.


God of War while a hard game is not the same type of challenge like Ninja Gaiden Black in my opinion. God of War features an unbalanced difficulty curve and battles that are hard for the wrong reasons. Which I'll be referring to as "cheap hard", cheap hard is when the designers intentionally handicap the player to make fights hard or battles become difficult due to constraints of the game mechanics. The difficulty of God of War was never constant and I remember going through entire sections that were easy to only be stuck at one very hard section for some time. This keeps the player from learning tactics needed to survive and basically thrusts them into the fire without any guidance.

One annoyance I have with God of War and other titles like it, is that higher levels of difficulty = handicapping the player. For example of the right way of doing things, in Ninja Gaiden Black every difficulty level was basically a new game, with different item drops and new enemies to fight which meant you needed to improve your skills to take them. In God of War enemies became more durable and hit harder and that's it. Your going to do the same exact thing except now you basically have a ball and chain on your leg. Encounters that were annoying on the earlier levels are now close to impossible with the odds stacked so much against you. When I play games on the harder levels, I want a challenge not to find my character has been reduced to nothingness. In other words, leave my weapons and tricks alone, and instead work on the enemies.

The other element of cheap hard is when the designers decide to go sadist on you and design fights that go against the game play system. For example in God of War there were tough enemies who could spawn smaller enemies if you left them alone, no big deal right? Except those small enemies could without warning grow and become the tough enemies and repeat the process over again. Due to the camera system and how his weapon was designed to focus on one direction made it difficult to hit everything to stop this process from taking place. Having attacks made off camera or in a way that the player can't respond to them is another example of cheap hard. Then there are games that throw everything away for the final fight basically making what you did up to that section pointless, such as in the game Gun, the final boss fight made all your weapons useless and forced you into a puzzle fight to win. Another pet peeve of mine is when the difficulty of a section is due to a lack of checkpoints, such as in Metroid Prime 3 where the final boss fight is really 3 bosses in a row and dieing at any one of them requires you to start over again.

A game that has "fair hard" amount of challenge is one that I'm always feeling that I'm making progress in some way, even if it's a few steps at a time. In GodHand every time you died and the level restarted, items repopulated the world giving you a chance to get more money or better items this time around making the restart hurt less, and you keep your current amount of money. RPGS however don't have that sense of progress and becomes more like going face first into a wall which is one reason why I'm quicker to quit RPGS when I get stuck, as it always turns into "meet boss, it hits for 1000 damage, your party dies, enjoy 3 more hours of grinding". So far the only RPG I've seen that avoids this is The World Ends With you.

TWEWY needs to be further explained on how to do difficulty right. The game rewards players for upping the challenge in a variety of ways and can be lowered at any time in case you bit off more then you can chew. I think TWEWY is a perfect example on how to balance a game so that newcomers can have an easy learning experience, while still pushing expert players to their limits.

Rogue Likes are another good example of fair hard, these games are hard, brutally hard yet fair. The rules are explained well and the difficulty adds a sense of tension while playing. Dieing in a rogue game is less from the designers being unfair and more often your fault or just having an unlucky run. Another reason why it is fair in Rogue Likes is due to the length of the game, you should (given a good run of items) be able to finish the main dungeon in about 30 minutes meaning you won't be losing alot of time if you die.

While working on my latest game document for an action title I've already decided on how difficulty should work for it. With exception to the easy setting, the harder modes will not affect the player's stats at all but instead will determine what tactics the enemies will use on the player. This means that the game will be hard, but once the player has gotten used to it, the game should become easier. Playing a game on the harder difficulty levels should offer a challenge, not an excuse to make the game unfair for the sake of it. Personality any game that offers difficulty levels, I wish could follow the Ninja Gaiden Black model by reshaping the game instead of just tweaking a few numbers for all the characters.



For the record I haven't technically threw any controllers against the wall, I did spike them against the floor a few times, and came close to throwing a CD out the window once, other then that I consider myself even temper.


Josh


July 5th update: While I was thinking up another example of cheap hard from Metroid Prime 3, I thought up a clearer explanation of how I want designers to alter game difficulty. Enemy and player stats should not be changed when moving from normal to hard for example. Instead throw in new types of enemies to replace old ones, or a newer version that has different attacks. The other aspect is to make sure to retest the hardest sections of your game with the harder difficulty to check if the game is still balanced.

An interstellar tour around the universe(which takes more then 3 hours).

If there is one classic game even above X-Com that needs an amazing sequel it is Star Control 2 (or SC2) which has been the only game so far that I can say is my favorite game of all time. SC2 basically did Grand Theft Auto sandbox style of game play before we even knew what GTA was (the game not the crime). The game is also one of the few games to have such an amazing interaction of game systems (which is similar to why X-Com is still one of the best games around.)

The story of SC2 takes place after Earth has become enslaved by an alien race called the Ur Quan and has been placed in an anti escape field . The player controls a crew of humans that have been living on an alien world for a long time and have found ancient alien technology used to create a new kind of alien ship. The game begins with the crew aboard the alien ship entering the Sol system (our galaxy) to find the planet closed off.

After a few required scenes the player is now free to explore the universe, that's right the universe is open. Using the Sol system as home base, the player can explore any of the other systems and will be able to mine them for minerals and local flora and fauna. These items can be traded for resource units (RU) and credits used to upgrade your ship and purchase technology to make life easier. And upgrade you will, at the start of the game your ship is just a floating husk unable to barely defend itself and will rely on other ships (more on that later). The universe is home to a very diverse group of aliens which you'll be interacting with. The main goal of the game is to discover a way to free Earth and destroy the Ur Quan Empire.

The game is made up of five main systems of play. First is flying through space, which you'll be doing alot to the main star systems. Enemy ships can be seen and will initiate either combat or conversation when you bump into them, planets can be explored using the same method. Next is customizing your main ship, from the space station you can spend RU to add a variety of equipment to your ship. From more weapons to turning jets and thrusters to make it faster while exploring and fighting. Whenever you talk to aliens, you'll be taken into a choose your dialogue conversation allowing to ask (or taunt) the alien in a variety of ways.

The last two are what you'll be doing the most in SC2. On any non gas planet you have the option to send down a lander to mine the planet for resources. Mining requires you to guide the lander around the surface picking up the minerals and shooting the local wild life with a stun shot. While your doing this you will have to deal with earthquakes, lightning, and fire depending on the type of planet. Mining is pivotal to the game early on as without it you will not be able to afford the fuel, and equipment needed to survive in the universe. Combat plays a huge role as obviously if your main ship is destroyed it's game over. Each species in the game (including human) has their own type of space craft and you can assemble your fleet from any type that your friendly with. Combat is real time as you fight the enemy fleet one ship at a time, crew represents the health of the ship and once there is no one left aboard the ship goes boom. Each alien ship also comes with a unique ability, and combat was so fun that the designers added in a multi player mode where players can built a fleet and fight each other.


There are many reasons why SC2 is on alot of gamers "best of" list. As mentioned earlier , SC2 has 5 well integrated systems to play around with, each different from each other. SC2 is one of the earliest examples I can remember that did open ended game play of this caliber, but unlike a game like X-Com there was a clear end point. Events tied into time would happen in the game and alien species can be wiped out if you don't get to them. The game also had what could be called a "death march" scenario as one of the eviler alien species would begin wiping out everyone else after a specific date. This serves to not only give the player a focus goal but tie into game play, you could spend a few months mining planets to build up your ship, but it could cost some of the alien species their lives.

The story is pretty unique with the Earth taken out of the picture and the alien species are well defined and interesting to talk with. The game play of SC2 hasn't been copied perfectly in all this time in my opinion. Playing Space Rangers 2 and Escape Velocity Nova which tries the open ended game play system similar to SC2 still doesn't come out the same in my opinion. The difference is in the scope of the games, Space Rangers' goal is opened ended and allows the player complete freedom in that regard. Personality I think that is too much and I prefer to have a clear specific goal to accomplish if even it's going to take a long time . Which is achieved in StarControl2 by freeing the Earth from the Ur-Quan.

The game play in SC2 is well integrated ( a comment I made about X-Com as well), each system adds more depth to the game and keeps thing from becoming to stale. Another factor is the game is pretty unique in it's design, and I've yet to see a game be able to beat it in terms of game play. The game also has that "one more turn" feel to it as you explore the dozens if not hundreds of planets in the universe for resources to help your cause. Replaying the game is as easy as picking a different direction to go off in from the Sol system and see what turns up.Like all classics I could nitpick a few design decisions and offer suggestions now, but considering the time this game came out and the fact that no has been able to successfully copy what made this game great I can't complain.

Josh