A much needed whack.

Since graduating about 2 years ago I've spent a lot of my time reading books and one set of books that I cannot recommend enough are from Roger Von Oech. His books are about trying to help you become more creative at life and at work. A few months ago I read “A kick in the seat of the pants" and now I'm reading the 1990 version of "A Whack on the Side of the Head"(I do need to check out the updated version). While reading it I ran into two quotes that not only sum up what it means to be creative in my opinion but also fit really well into what it means to be a game designer.

"Play is what I do for a living. The work comes in organizing the results of the play"

This is the first quote I would like to share with everyone. In previous entries I've talked about the games industry as a fun business and that we do need to work to create games. However we are making fun, creative products and you need to keep yourself light hearted and open minded to be able to do that. In "A Whack on the Side of the Head", Roger talks about 10 "mental locks" we have that prevents us from being creative. Being unable to have time to play is one of them and I also think this quote describes pretty well what we as designers do for a living.

"Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist after growing up."

Moving on this quote by Picasso is yet another quote that fits well with both being creative and working in the games industry. This is one industry that "growing up" by societies' definition is frown upon. I fully admit that I still watch cartoons everyday over Lost or American Idol and haven't developed that one track mind of working in corporate America yet. I try to keep my thoughts as weird and out there as I can as you never know when something will grow from that one random thought. Keeping yourself young at heart is one of the key traits of being creative and besides what normal adult could ever come up with the plot and weapon designs for Pain Killer anyway?

I'm still reading through the book in my spare time but I felt these quotes were perfect for a blog on game design.

Josh.

"I'm gonna wait til the midnight hour..."

Well this is certainly a weird time to be posting. Anyway work is going... pretty much like work. I'm attempting to get my Left 4 Dead fix in at 1:30 in the morning which hasn't been going too well. I do know some people who are completely out of my time zone which has made getting a game somewhat easier.

Anyway I got a problem for all the board game players out there. Looking over my design document for my game, most of my rules and mechanics can easily be translated from playable on the pc, to playable on a board. Except for one, knowing where the monster is for the Victor player. Obviously both players are viewing the board at the same time and telling the Victor player to look away while the monster is moving works. However what happens when the monster is done moving, the player can't leave the piece on the board as Victor will know where he is and ruin the use of the security check feature.


Now I have a few ideas on the backburner for this problem but I would really like to hear from players of the genre who have dealt with this problem before or have any solutions of their own to contribute. I just don't want my big epiphany idea to be something that someone came up with 10 years ago as a solution. Well, the massive caffeine boost I took to stay up is starting to fade so I'm going to log off here and get some shut eye.



Josh

Behind the scenes of a beatdown.

As you might have guess by now, I have a love of action games. So after reading this article on Gamasutra analyzing the combat and enemy systems of popular action titles, you knew I had to comment on it. You can find the article here , there are a few points I would like to talk about and what I would like to see change or improved in future action titles.




Action groups: This I find very interesting, as this dictates the amount of combat the player will have to deal with at one point. I do think though that this was a necessity of the technology. The reason is that if every enemy on screen could attack at one time they would get caught into each other or be able to attack the player through each other making it very unfair. However I think technology has advanced to the point that enemies can take up physical space in the game world allowing them to attack more efficiently and realistically as a result.


Timing: As someone who has a game document detailing an action title, I'm surprised at myself that I never thought of this as a factor. I definitely think that instead of having a set value for this, randomizing it based on the difficulty and enemies attacking would make the combat more satisfying.


Tells: Now this is very important for action titles as without it the player would be unable to use the defense systems in place. The main issues are with the camera and the actual tells, if it's too far away then the player won't be able to pick up on them, too close and the player won't be able to see enough of the game space to fight in. A camera system similar to God of War but zoomed in slightly should work, along with bigger character models on screen (not muscular but just generally taking up more space on screen).

With the tells themselves all enemies should have some kind of attack tell, it's just not fair to the player to have 5 enemies attack without warning chipping away at your health. Of course major enemies need to have tells as if I don't see that 3/4 health bar loss attack coming I'm going to be pissed.



Enemy Defense: Now we're talking, just being able to punch through 100 guys in a row will get boring fast. In my action title the enemies have access to the same defensive options as the player forcing the player to counter their counter attacks and mix up their combos. The harder the difficulty level the more this will take affect, with some enemies completely immune to hand, feet, or grapple attacks.

Interupts: Another important decision in action games, being able to stop someone's attack with your own is an important decision. I feel that basic attacks from both the player and enemies shouldn't interrupt which will allow the defense system to play a larger role. Stronger attacks by both parties should knock whoever they hit out of whatever attack they're using.

Gating: This is one design decision I think needs to go and is a good indicator of a bad combat system in my opinion. If the player wants to avoid fighting in an action game, then the designer has failed in their job of providing an engaging combat system. Then there are games where every 10 feet walls will pop up as enemies magically appear out of no where which is usually very annoying.

Hits to kill: Lastly how much damage should enemies take before they go down. Personally instead of having a fix health amount for every enemy type, I would rather see a random slight increase or decrease in the max health of enemies just to spice things up.


I enjoyed the article as it has been a while since I've read a piece analyzing the genre. The action genre has seen some growing up in no small part thanks to games like Ninja Gaiden and God of War but I think we've yet to see a true "next-gen" action title and Ninja Gaiden 2 does not count.

Josh

"Today's music ain't got the same soul..."

When it comes to video games, I'm both up to date with the newest releases and stuck in the past with classic old school titles. However music is another story for me, as my love is stuck firmly in the 60s 70s and 80s. It's like when the date hit 1990 new music became horrible for me to listen to. Now sure there are a few hits of recent years that I do like to hear, however give me The Rolling Stones or The Who any day of the week. I've tried recently to get into today's music and I've come to a conclusion about why this it doesn't click for me (don't worry I will link this to game design soon).

So in the past few months it seems I can't turn on a radio station without hearing something by the Jonas Brothers or Hannah Montana or whatever the hell the "tweens" are listening to. (FYI the word tween makes me sick, which perhaps someday I'll explain why). I've tried to listen to popular music and most of it has the same generic sounding crap to me. I listen to the singer's vocals and I just don't hear "it" in their voice. By "it" I mean that passion in the voice, which the person loves every minute of it and is into the song. When I hear bands like Three Dog Night, Guess Who, The Who, among many others sing I can hear it. Today it sounds like there is no energy in the singers, that it's all corporate funded singing. Also female singers who have to scream 75% of the song annoy the hell out of me. After that long and winding road it's time for the point of this entry.


While we may never hear the lead designer sing in a video game (for my voice that is a blessing) but you can tell in a game when a designer has really poured their heart and soul into the project. Whether it is something unique for the time like X-Com or a game where every inch of the game feels like it was carefully put together. These are the games that last forever among the hardcore, games that rarely get sequels or are big sellers. Comparing this to my musical example, a lot of the casual games out today are like the lifeless songs of today. There are examples of amazing casual games but the majority like to copy everyone else's design. I believe this quote taken from 1up by the designer behind Shadow of the Colossus, Fumito Ueda sums up my thoughts best:

"As a company employee, it is necessary to create something that sells. However, if I were to choose between something that sells for a moment and is forgotten, and something that doesn't sell much but is remembered, I would choose the latter. But I personally think that a game has potential to sell a certain number of units no matter how quickly it sells. That is why I think that the one that leaves good memories is better, since it will make a sequel more appealing."

We don't have to worry about games losing their soul anytime soon with developers like Suda 51 and Atlus around, but I think this is something to think about the next time you see the umpteenth version of diner dash in stores.

Josh

P.S The most current song I actually liked would have to be Crazy by Gnarlis Barkley, which I think means something mentally but I don't think it's that important right now :)

Game night in Philly.

Last night was the IGDA Philly chapter’s game night, which would be the second one I attended. I had a good time at the last one and this time was no exception. The games ran the gambit from casual titles to a military simulator being developed for the DOD. Once again it was great putting the faces to the various posters; it also showed me one of the things I really love about this industry.



There is no such thing as a “perfect” video game. Compared to other media that have defining pieces of work that cannot be toppled, in the games industry we do not have games that can achieve that status. The reason is that each one of us has our own unique view of game design; from that an actual game. If there was ever a perfect game, then we wouldn’t need any other games. Imagine if after Super Mario Bros, there was no need to create any other plat formers and we would miss out on so many unique titles. Each game shown last night was great and something I never would have thought up which is a good thing. As long as we have creative members of this industry there will always be different variations and takes on game genres.



I’m really kicking myself for not having any information written up for my board game as it would have been the perfect time to reveal it. However it has focused my attention on the project and I will now be working on a PowerPoint to get my thoughts in order.



Josh

We interrupt this blog for a service announcement

Originally I had planned this week to do an entry on old school games but unfortunately there has been a problem. After about 2 years of feeling fine I've come down with a sinus infection and have lost the ability to breath through my nose. Just now I've lost my voice which doesn't mean much for a blog entry but annoying nonetheless. Anyway just wanted to post that I'm alive and kicking and hopefully I'll have something to say next week.

Josh

Is there a Mathematician in the house?

So my board game idea has hit a little snag. I've decided that it is not a 1:1 increase between stats and die rolls for the monster and now I'm trying to create a formula to use for this. The problem is trying to nail down one that not only can be calculated either by hand or by computer, but is also fair to the players. As I've mentioned I want the average play time to be around one hour for two rounds. If I make Die increases too hard then the player will have to spend more time improving them increasing the play time. On the other hand if it is too easy to get them then the monster can spend a few turns and have super high stats completely disregarding the importance of the starting stats. Right now I've narrowed it down to three different ones and I'm hoping that I can get some insight from the readers of my blog.

A few terms first: Die increase stat (DIS) = The stat value that will give the monster an extra die.

Die increase value (DIV) = The new amount of die the monster can roll for a check using that stat.

Last die increase stat (LDIS) = The last stat value that was needed to get the current amount of die for that stat.


With that said here are the formulas that I've come up with using these variables.

1. DIS= LDIS * DIV

2. DIS= DIV plus all numbers before it (IE DIV=5 then 5+4+3+2+1, if someone could please tell me the name of this I would be very grateful)

3. DIS= LDIS + DIV

For a base line, one point in the respective stat = 1 die for a roll using it and then the formulas kick in from there. As I think about it #3 would give the monster a nice advantage early on and could easily make up for the Victor player not picking good parts. Then again I could run into a balancing issue of the part choices not mattering. #1 would give the monster a small advantage starting out but would quickly become tough around the third die. There is one avenue I've been thinking about, having long and short versions of the game using #1 and #3 respectively. I am opening up the flood gates for any suggestions or criticisms so if anyone has any thoughts on this I would be happy to hear them.



Josh

A ( melodramatic) trip to the O.R.

I've had some time to spend with the latest game in the Trauma Center series which is known for its polarizing opinions from gamers. In the past I've been a supporter of the series' high level of difficulty and enjoyed the last 3 games, however I will not be praising Trauma Center: Under the Knife 2.


Like real surgery, just one mistake can be disastrous for the patient and sadly TC2 has made such a mistake. It's funny to me how just one slight difference or design philosophy change can wreck so much havoc in a game. In previous TC titles the games secret weapon “the healing touch" or otherwise known as bullet-time was set up to be a panic button. In many of the series’ hardest surgeries expert players could just rely on their own skills while novices could use the HT for when all hell breaks loose, in TC 2 however that is no longer the case, with many surgeries flat out requiring the HT just to survive. Now I consider myself an above average player at the TC games, I beat the X missions (super hard levels) of the 3 previous titles. On normal in TC2 I'm finding myself required to use the HT to get through some of the harder surgeries. There are a few that I'm convinced aren't possible without the HT and I'll tell you why.


In the TC series, there are two kinds of damage, instant and over time. Instant comes from attacks by the malady such as making cuts or exploding tumors and cannot be defended or avoided. Over time comes from the lasting affects of the instant type, such as the cut causing bleeding to occur. In order to heal the patient you first need to fix what ever is causing the over time damage then inject stabilizer to increase the vitals. What this means is that for the player to heal the patient they need to perform two steps to keep the vitals up, this becomes a problem when you add the disease to the equation. The disease's in TC 2 are very cheap and will do multiple instant damages at one time forcing the player to react fast. Unfortunately the time it takes to repair the damage, the disease will attack again forcing the player into a un winnable cycle of healing and repairing. The later surgeries feature boss fights where the disease will cause huge damage all over the screen keeping the player from actually attacking while they play catch up. The problem is that it's impossible to catch up without using the HT as you will not be able to repair and recover before it attacks again.


Most of the non disease related surgeries rely on overwhelming the player with numerous problem areas at once. Gone are the days of more puzzle-like stages unfortunately. I'm at the end of the game about to face off against the final disease and I really don't have the care to do it with how the game has turned out. TC 2 borrows heavily from the previous 3 games and does not expand the types of surgeries compared to them. Personally Trauma Center: New Blood on the Wii is the best in the series both for controls and for variety of surgeries. Speaking of controls I hate the placement of tools on the DS and would have loved to be able to set up where each part is located on the screen.



Overall I think the Trauma Center series now belongs on the Wii, the motion controls and dual hand control system improves the game drastically. TC2 is like someone getting ridiculous plastic surgery, sure underneath all that was once your friend, but they are no longer the same person. Trauma Center 2 gets a trip to the morgue.


Josh

Killing (and resurrecting) two birds with one stone.

For this entry I'm going to see how well I can post drawings for my Frankenstein board game idea onto my blog. I must warn you that any images shown may be too disturbing for some, not because of violence, sex, or gore, but because I'm a horrible drawer. Also I can explain some of the mechanics better using images then without. For my first pic, this is what I call the "journal page" which the Victor player will see before the game begins:



On the right side are the cards available to the player for that part, the computer will roll from one to six to determine how many different versions of that part are available. The upper left hand portion is flavor text describing the part, which I tried my best to emulate a mad genius bringing the dead back to life. The bottom left text is the actual stats of the organ along with any unique strengths or weaknesses associated with it. Clicking on a card on the right side will change the text. Along the bottom of the screen are the current stats of the monster which are based on the parts the player has selected already. The (X) value represents the number of die the stat will give the monster for that roll. The score value is the pool of points Victor has when the game begins.




This next screen is the summary page once all the parts have been picked. Clicking on a part on the left page will take the player back to the part selection page to pick again. All stats and traits are listed on the right along with the highest possible score Victor can achieve for the round. Looking at these pages makes me realize just how horrible of an artist I really am and that I should be banned from the art department.

Now with that said, I’m going to try to work on getting the interface screens that each player will use for the game up next. Unfortunately don't expect much in improvements of the drawings, as this blog does not have a designated artist :)

Josh

P.S. Try to image these pages with moody violin music and a torn old page like look to them to make them more bearable to look at.

P.P.S. And yes the mushroom on the bottom of the screen is the brain.

A terminal view of life.

Turning Over a New Leaf: (We’re trying something new with the topic this month, so please read carefully.) February’s BoRT invites you take a game design suggested by another blogger in last month’s Round Table and build upon it. You should ignore the literary source of the original design, but attempt to communicate the same themes and/or convey the same mood as the proposed game. This means you can alter the game genre, change the setting, and add new layers to the game mechanics. This is not an opportunity to critique a previous design, but to honor it by striving to reach the same goals, while adding your own personal touch.





For this month's round table we're looking at other contributors for inspiration. The entry that really resonated with me was Roger Travis' "Oedipus the RPG" which you can read here. I agree with him that time used effectively as a factor can be a powerful mechanic both for gameplay and story. For my round table entry this month I'm going to try to help you figure out how you'll spend your last day alive.

The game starts with you waking up in the hospital at an undisclosed point in the future the doctor tells you that you were diagnosed with a terminal disease and was cytogenetically frozen until a cure was found. Unfortunately medicinal science has plateau its research at giving you 24 hours alive before the disease finishes you. The doctor then gives you photos of your remaining living family members and any descendents and the game begins.

From this point you have free access to the entire world and can chat with anyone you want. Similar to Roger's game idea dialogue options will be vast to the point that you could spend your entire 24 hours with one person and still not run out of things to say. Your choices when talking to people will affect how they respond and you could push someone completely away with the wrong words. Technology has advanced to the point that transportation around the planet is easy and visiting any family members will be a snap. However it will still take some time to get around which is very precious to you. You could even head towards where the leaders of the world are and meet them. It is impossible to see or do everything in one day which will leave you with many questions for repeat play through. You could track down your family to see how they have lived their lives or just go wandering around the planet to get a glimpse of the new world before you die.

There aren't any goals per say in this game but there are multiple story tracks you could follow. Such as the above mentioned finding out about your family, or the world. There is one other option, trying to research your disease and perhaps curing it. To do this you will have to use up most if not all your time remaining making it a goal from the start or no chance to accomplish it. The problem with this path is that by doing this you will be unable to explore the world or visit what is left of your family making this more or less the bad ending. The reason why this is the bad ending is that the point of the game is to spend your remaining hours rediscovering your family or the world. Another idea would be to have the world itself be different with each play through for example, one time you could awake to a peaceful world or a world at war. The differences in each world would also affect the people in it increasing the replay ability further.

Another aspect of Roger's idea was on the insignificance of the player in a sense to the grand scheme of things. In this title the player doesn't have any way to impact the world due to the time limit, they can only affect the people they come in contact with and talk to. Regardless of the setting of the world, the main character is not going to be the chosen one or the savior of man, they will just be a stranger in a strange land for a 24 hour tour.


At around the 15 hour mark you will start to show signs of the disease coming back and doing damage, as the world slowly starts to lose its color to signify the fact that you are starting to die. I can see this game having huge replay ability for adventure gamers as the locations of people in the world will be randomized from the start and since you could spend the entire day with one person means that there is a lot to find. I know that this game will not attract many action gamers but this was my first adventure game idea in some time and I thought it could be an interesting experiment on emotional impact in games hopefully similar to the game "Facade". Since this idea is an early concept and I can have anything I want in it, I would love to have the ability to speak whatever you want at any of the NPCs just like Facade however even as a dream idea that would require a lot of work.


Many games deemphasize time as an issue (Most RPGS as an example) yet knowing that your actions do have irreversible consequences within a set amount of time can be a very engaging gameplay experience.

Josh

P.S 24 hours might be a bit much so the game could be scaled to a 12 hour period with the affects of the disease starting at 6 hours instead of 15. One last variation could be the game taking place over 1 hour as you lay on your death bed and you have to decide who you will see before your time runs out. Unfortunately this idea eliminates the whole point of exploring a new world.

Year in review.

Today is my birthday which makes it the twenty fourth time that this event has occurred. I figured now is as good as time as any to look back on the past year of my life. I think I've made some progress both professionally and personality.

I do think that I've come somewhat out of my introverted shell this past year in no small part due to this blog. With two followers on it I'm scheduled to have another one in maybe 6 months as it seems to be happening. Thanks to Steam my friend's list is filled with people eager to kick my ass in L4D and Team Fortress 2 , which I'm now using my mic a lot more to let people hear my wonderful...ish voice. I might even start posting on a few forums with my real name (a shock I know).

Professionally while I can't say that I'm thrilled about my current working status, I'm at least happy that I'm working at all now. I'm continuing to write up my game ideas and will be keeping up with Corvus' round table each month which a new one should be ready this week. With the Philadelphia IGDA group I'm planning on attending the next meeting and hopefully taking part in the game jam again. About work, while it is boring and not my chosen profession it still feels really, really good to finally have money coming in.

So that just about does it for today, while this hasn't been my best birthday I've ever had, at least it beats the time I was almost killed twice on my birthday; which obviously there is an interesting story behind that statement :)



Josh