Design on the Run

Penn and Teller

2009-07-10T08:07:00.000-07:00

So, this month, AT&T - via their UVerse Service - is giving subscribers access to Showtime, Flix and Starz channels. I don't normally get access to these premium channels, as its not worth the expense and, frankly, I'm not home enough to make it worth the expense.

That said, I can occasionally tune in, and last night was one of those nights. I am a huge fan of the Penn and Teller 'Bull$#!@' series, but no more so than last night, when they took on the myth of the adverse affects of video game violence.

While their argument was abrieviated, the most telling portion of the episode was surrounding a mother of a pair of children, one of them a 9-year old boy. Because the argument about playing violent video games is often cast as protecting children from violence, or that violent video games are 'murder simulators' that train kids to perform orgys of violence, it was interesting to hear the Mom say:

"I know my son, he knows the difference between reality and fantasy."

That statement, alone, speaks volumes against the argument that I hear most often about banning violent video games which states that Children do not know the difference between reality and fantasy.

So, what will I do with my son? Good question. He's pretty savy on the computer right now - can navigate the websites he enjoys with a few clicks of the mouse and can play the simple flash games contained within, so he likes games. I know that I grew up without a content filter by my parents - I saw Aliens when I was 7, I played with toy guns, etc. Should a child play a game with gratuitous dismemberments? Does your child understand the difference between fantasy and reality?

That's the real question, and one that the government should not be answering.

I may have to buy Guitar Hero: World Tour after all...

2009-05-28T08:11:00.000-07:00

...now that they have announced that this total geek song will be a free download.

I'm such a geek.

Six Days in Fallujah

2009-05-04T08:40:00.000-07:00

Like many others with their fingers on the pulse of the gaming industry, I was appropriately intrigued by the recently announced game, Six Days in Fallujah, but for reasons different than the average gamer or developer.

From the screenshots, the graphics looked surprisingly pedestrian.

When described as a survival/horror style game, I didn't think that I'd really enjoy the gameplay all that much.

What did intrigue me about the game was its subject matter. It was a pretty bold move to chose to use a very specific engagement in the Second Iraq War as the basis of your game, particularly when the Second Iraq War draws such heated responses from both sides of the political spectrum. But it wasn't just the subject matter that got my attention, rather, it was the response to the fact that this was a game, about a real and recent event, that got my attention.

A great majority of the feedback was wholly negative. The event was "too recent" and that the game would "do a disservice to the men who fought and died there."

The first point is debatable, and the second is the real crux of the complaint. Clearly, games are more than childish playthings at this point: the Nintendo Generation is now over 30 years of age. The Playstation 1 generation of kids has graduated college and entering the workforce, and the PS2 generation is nearly there.

Gaming, as a medium of artistic expression, is here and holds relevance for those that have grown up with it. It is more than a child's play thing, though, there is much of gaming that fills that role.

The general response of "disservice to those that died" is clearly made under the false assumption that games are not art. But if we are to be considered art, like film, cinema and literature, developers need to be able to take on controversial topics - like the War in Iraq - and do so without worrying about publishers pulling the plug.

To put it another way: if "Six Days in Fallujah" had been a movie, would we even be having this discussion? Obviously not. Atomic is making a serious game, on a serious subject matter, using a significant and recent event as the backdrop. That alone, for those like me that enjoy serious games and see games as an art form, is enough to pique my interest and hope to see the game on the shelf.

Will the game be any good? I don't know. I hope it is. More importantly, I hope it does treat the subject matter seriously and not put it into any sort of political context. You can tell the story of Fallujah without any NeoCon or Liberal spin - simply putting the player into the battle, and tell the stories of the men around them (ala Brothers in Arms) should be compelling and engrossing enough.

LOTR:O

2009-04-24T14:20:00.000-07:00

Lord of the Rings: Online was only my fourth EmEmOhArPeGuh, and, only the second I took really seriously.

To give an idea of how serious, I played LOTRO in:

Closed Beta 2
Open Beta
Preorder
Launch

Unfortunately, in that time, I committed one of the major blunders that most EmEmOhArPeGuh run into: burnout. By the time of launch, I'd been just about everywhere, and seen just about everything.

The game is gorgeous, and, more to the point, it always felt like Turbine really got Middle Earth, with all of its rich history and diverse cultures. From walking into Bree and the Inn of the Prancing Pony to viewing the Hobbits in Hobbington, Turbine's loving treatment of the universe made the game that much more enjoyable.

Not to say that the game is flawless, but it is a clean, easy to get into game that isn't quite as newbie friendly as WoW, but it certainly provides a more engrossing PvE experience.

So, when I saw that the Mines of Moria expansion was dropped, I was intrigued, but, I really couldn't afford the time or money to play. Don't get me wrong, the idea of putting together a longsword Adaneth Bario (look up the Sindarin) and exploring the Delve known as Moria would be a treat, but with the work hours I was keeping, and being a devoted father, spending the time needed to get that far into the game just wasn't an option.

Well, now that I spend most evenings home alone once Max is down to bed, I've got a couple of hours to kill most evenings.

So, I broke down and purchased the expansion, and once again, LOTR:O has sucked me in. All it does now is make me want to make an MMO...

What's wrong with me?

So...I'm playing Left4Dead again...

2009-04-21T14:20:00.000-07:00

I was an early adopter of the game, and much like TF2, I'd gotten myself burned out on it.

I had purchased both with the understanding that Valve would release sufficient content drops to make the purchases worthwhile. In TF2, that was certainly the case.

Left4Dead, not so much. The game consisted of approx. 10 multiplayer maps, and 20 cooperative & single player maps. That sounds like a lot, but, in multiplayer, a full 'campaign' takes about an hour or so to play. Further, because the campaign is pretty linear, it didn't take long for experienced players to quickly realize what you should and shouldn't do, and where you should and shouldn't go as both Survivor and Undead.

Ultimately, it got repetitive. Not to say that wiping out the survivors didn't get less sweet, rather, it got more so - you knew the strategy for survival, it was always a question of breaking the survivors out of their plan.

So, two things happened:
1) I started playing the game again with former co-workers (to which I'm called 'The Lucky One') and it is a hoot when you are playing the game with people you know. The enjoyment factor is much much higher.
2) The release date for the new content was announced, which caused Point 1.

So, I've been enjoying Left4Dead again. Now, if they finally get the SDK released, like they said they would, the possibilities for awesomeness will only increase.

Hello, Old Friend...

2009-04-17T15:27:00.000-07:00

Let me put on my Internet Nerd Hat for the moment and make a confession:

Yes, I play in a PBeM RPG. I've played in one, off and on, since the mid to late 1990's.

And in that time and within those games, I've had the opportunity to work with a variety of different people. Sadly enough, I find that with my participation in these games, I've found my writing ability and, more importantly, writing discipline has greatly benefited from my participation over the years.

I write for myself, by and large, to keep my creative writing skills up - and since I am trying to focus now more on content design and game writing than system design, I find the process a really fun way to keep my skills up.

Friends have come and gone through these games, and most I have lost contact with while I continue to write.

However, of late, I've been able to work again with an old friend. We'd lost contact, or, at least, extremely inconsistent contact for the last few years. We'd worked together for...six or seven years. We have had a strong friendship, and definitely have a kindred intellect and creativity.

So, it's been wonderful to work together again, even if it is for our own benefit and enjoyment.

Thoughts on the Wii

2009-04-16T13:42:00.000-07:00

Alright, so, there's this large elephant in the video game room. It has sold like crazy, so, as a result, all of the publishers need to address it. We're talking about the Nintendo Wii, of course, and with it, all of the baggage associated with it.

In the spirit of that large elephant, I have the sneaking suspicion that the gaming press are hoping that the system will be something that it isn't: a mainstream gaming machine that appeals to the broader hardcore market.

We're all aware at how grossly underpowered the Wii is when compared to her current generation siblings. We're also well aware that there have been some games that have come out on the Wii (Resident Evil 4, the Metroid and Zelda games, and the latest, MadWorld) that purport to cater to the hardcore gamer. While RE4 and the latest Zelda were clearly developed on or for the previous platform (Gamecube/PS2), and Metroid was created by an internal development team, we only have MadWorld as the one, true, independent, hardcore targeted title for the Wii until The Conduit drops.

Which leaves me wondering: what part of the Wii audience are really hardcore gamers? I ask this as a serious question, because when I look at the vast majority of games out there, it reads like an inverse bell curve: you've got casual, older gamers on one side, and you've got kids on the other, with the hardcore, early-adopters stuck squarely in a blackhole of suck in the middle.

So, why make hardcore games for the Wii? They are already going to be at a pretty severe disadvantage in terms of graphical and even technical (memory) capabilities. The base control scheme, reliant upon a somewhat foggy, and typically requires a great deal of flailing about like an idiot. While that might fly in party games where laughing at your friends is required, trying to get into a game like...dunno...Mass Effect if I have to waggle that Wii-mote to perform combat...

...ugh...what makes the Wii so special? Can someone explain it? Please?

Narrative Has Its Place

2009-04-08T08:22:00.000-07:00

As a Game Designer, the use of narrative in games always intrigues me, and after reading some of Steve Gaynor's articles on immersion and invisibility, and it has got me thinking...

Alright, I suppose I am a bit of a maverick - I don't really have a problem with a forced narrative that creates a memorable experience, because that creates a very important bridge between the three very important groups that plays games: the hardcore gamer, the hip gamer, and the casual gamer.

Now, let me quantify those terms:

The Hardcore Gamer: is what you expect what you hear the term "Gamer" - these are the men, women, and children who are early adopters of technology, who want the cutting edge, and who demand a lot out of their entertainment dollar. They read all of the reviews, and tell all of their friends which games are fun, and which are not. The vast majority of Game Designers definitely fall into this category.

The Hip Gamer: is a nebulous description, but this is a group of gamers that is influenced heavily by the Hardcore Gamers in terms of game purchases. They read the reviews, but tend to be more circumspect about what they purchase, relying on friends, blogs, reviews, and the like to drive their game purchases.

The Casual Gamer: is the largest market of gaming. Casual Gamers play everything from simple card games that come preloaded on PCs (Solitaire anyone?), to party Games. This is the market most difficult to target a game toward, and not just because it is the largest, most diverse market. Casual Gamers don't purchase many games per year, and really don't keep up with the industry unless it makes mainstream news outlets, yet represent the largest potential market in gaming.

Now, looking at some of Steve's concerns on immersion, these are all outstanding and very valid points that are reasoned out extremely well. But, and I'm sure we could have a spirited discussion on it, I don't believe that completely abdicating authorial control is a positive thing, and that memorable moments in games can be highly scripted, narrow and focused.

A narrow, tightly focused experience - a great example being Call of Duty 4 or Half Life 2 (along with its episodic content) - may be passe for Game Design Theorists, but it is at the heart of bridging the gap between the Hardcore, the Hip and the Casual gamers. These focused games, the very antithesis of open-worlds and letting the player create their own moments rather than sharing in the moments authored by design, give one very important tool to those that don't always play games: direction.

Hip Gamers and Casual Gamers, those that maybe purchase one or two games per month, look for a guided experience and crave direction. My Wife, the antithesis of a gamer, loved Half Life and Half Life 2 because of their level structure and episodic feel of the story and, more importantly, always knew that there was a path - somewhere - leading her to the next encounter. The game was a line, from A to B, and she knew that if she worked hard enough, that she could reach the end.

Conversely, when she watched my play GTA IV (the only one in the series I actually enjoyed, but explaining that would take up a whole post in and of itself), she kept asking me: "Where are you going?" Followed up with "Why?"

That is something very important that I think a lot of theorists (myself included, for what it is worth), being a part of the industry and therefore on the cutting edge, need to understand: We need to make games for them as much, if not more, than we make games for us. What has made game narrative so...bad, by and large...is as much a function of the game development process as it is who has been entrusted to write the games.

The games with the best narrative, open or focused, have had writers work on them during preproduction, production and right up until content lock. The best companies treat the Narrative and Story as another system that must be planned, created, trimmed, polished and refined along with everything else in the game, and also appreciate that the more a Game Designer has to spend working on everything but the story, the weaker and less engaging the story becomes.

I had a review of Empire:Total War...

2009-03-25T08:58:00.001-07:00

...but the dodgy power here in the building caused my rig to reset.

As a result, I lost it all, and am loathe to retype it all again, lets the power strike it down.

Again.

So, here is the quick, quick summary:

+ Awesome Introduction Campaign
+ Grand Campaign is Challenging and Diverse
+ Musket-based combat is horrifying and challenging

- Massive Naval Battles are a pain in the ass to control
-- AI doesn't appear to have a good handle on how fleet actions occurred in that age
- Requires a fairly beefy system to run

So, in all, I highly recommend it if you need a strategy fix. Pick it up, you won't be disappointed!

Games and Game Stories: Part 2

2009-02-27T07:22:00.000-08:00

How should designers get more serious about story?

This sounds painfully simple, but, believe me

Commit to story early on
Develop and modify the story with the technology
The story is never done as long as technology is still being developed

Now, having been hired to help develop a game story and universe from the ground up, I know firsthand that programming trends toward giving story a short shrift. The technology needs to be done first, and then the story can be molded around it. Art and Design tend to look at it the other way, the story needs to be nailed down first, so that systems and content can be developed early on.

In the end, if you want a narrative-based game - regardless of format - there needs to be commitment to the story from the very beginning. The first point is absolutely critical. If you expect a game designer to also design systems and the like, that is fine, and given budget constraints, typically inevitable. But if you commit to a narrative early on, that - as much as platform - helps determine system requirements. I know that the programmers that read this may raise an eyebrow, but when you know the story, you know what sort of AI infrastructure you need, what sort of animation and facial systems required.

Story can help you list what technological innovations you need to work on, and what fanciful systems that the game will need.

Hurm...let me ponder more...I may come back to this...

Back

2009-02-17T13:44:00.000-08:00

I'm back, and should have a followup post to my story post tonight.

AFK

2009-02-12T18:03:00.003-08:00

I'll be in Houston tomorrow and through the weekend.

I promise, I'll get point two of my post on story and episodic content posted early next week.

Games and Game Stories: Part 1

2009-02-11T08:22:00.000-08:00

Or, why can't more video game studios make a good episodic game series?

In this day and age of rising development costs and digital distribution, episodic gaming seems like a natural choice for small, independent developers as well as larger, more established development studios.

I'm of the opinion that it isn't about the technology, or the team size, it's about the story. Game writing is - as much as it pains me to say this - largely laughably bad.

I can count on two hands the number of really good game stories, with well-rounded characters, etc. that have been released and have also been fun games to play. Game Writing, as others have lamented, seems to be in this push and pull between good narrative development in the dramatic tradition and interactivity.

In other words, you can't tell a good story in an environment where the player has a say in the outcome of the story. So, most game developers bail because:

It costs too much money to work on something that few players will appreciate
Gameplay always trumps narrative
The average gamer doesn't really care about the story

In response, I say:

The gamers that appreciate great stories are the ones that tell their friends that they should purchase the game.
Got me there; this is the biggest challenge for writing in games, but it IS possible to integrate the two (see "Bioshock", "Mass Effect","Fallout 3" and "Max Payne 1 & 2") without failing either the gameplay test or the story test. The studios that set out to write good games and make fun games to play requires a integration of purpose and cooperation that seems to be lacking in most mainstream game studios. Even big studios, like Epic, have failed tremendously to great compelling stories that fully embrace their outstanding gameplay. Sure, Gears of War 1 & 2 are fun games to play, but I tuned out the story because it was laughably bad - in premise, dialog and characters.
There is some truth in that, but do they not care because the story is bad, or they just don't care about a story at all.

Point 3 is perhaps the most intriguing, and it seems to me that the the logic behind the argument is circular. People don't care about story in games, because the story is bad, so we will put in a bad story.

One of the reasons why games in story are so bad is that the person often writing the story, characters, dialog, is also tasked with working on so much else. From designing systems (from the most basic UI to the most advanced AI), to tuning gameplay, to mocking up art, interface, sounds, and whatever else needs doing, Game Designers are also typically tasked to write the story, concieve the characters, write the dialog, and generally concieve the universe in general.

Designing systems is no small feat, and considering much of it consists of going back and forth between all of the departments to ensure that everyone has their say in what the system should do. All of this, I assure you constant reader, takes a great deal of time.

It's no wonder that Games get lambasted for their stories, the people entrusted to write them are overwhelmed with designing everything else for the game! Of course the stories come off as bad!

Well, I'm of the opinion that most games simply aren't planned to be that enduring and aren't built to be as such. Part of it is the ephemeral nature of the industry: if the next contract doesn't come, the next game isn't made and the company closes. The other part is that most Game Designers are not writers. We are responsible for so much...stuff...that every other department looks at the story, which should be the corner stone of the single player campaign, as an afterthought - a context through which their technical and artistic wizardry.

For Part II: how game designers should get more serious about narrative.

Not even remotely game related...

2009-02-04T17:53:00.000-08:00

Dear Max,

You are strong and you will do well in life. I love you and Mommy deeply.

Today and tomorrow and for the rest of your life, let each day grow and grow.

Keep smiling, laughing, and loving life. Most of all, never give up, even when things get you down.

So, in closing, my Son... tonight, before you get snuggled under your covers, tell Mommy I love her. Then hug her for me and give her a kiss good night for me.

Love,

Daddy

Thoughts on Failure

2009-01-17T18:54:00.000-08:00

There are two excellent blog posts out there regarding the failed MMO 'Tabula Rasa'. The posts, by a designer on another project at the same studio, and a programmer pretty high up in another internal studio in Europe.

Frankly, both blogs - after reading them both, and reading them again - are pretty scary. You see, much of what they talk about, in terms of management and morale on the Tabula Rasa team I have experienced first hand.

Now, I know that the last project I worked on is (more than likely), going to ship. It is oddly comforting and disturbing that other studios suffer the same sort of internal issues I experienced.

I'm going to take some time and digest it before I post more. I really suggest that you read those posts if you are a developer, are curious about game development, and more to the point, have been on the business end of some bad project and project development

I Love My Job

2009-01-17T12:32:00.000-08:00

I didn't think that this would be the case, but I'm enjoying working at a much smaller company than I did at the larger companies I've worked at so far.

I'm enjoying it for one reason: everyone in management, top to bottom, has been around long enough and have worked at enough other studios that they know what works and what doesn't work.

They are open and expect collaboration. Sitting in silence is frowned upon. When your idea is used, you are praised. When you idea isn't used, you're praised for at least suggesting something. Everyone understands that morale is more than free goodies, it is about open communication and ensuring everyone is working toward a common goal without regret.

I'm sure that this has something to do with the fact that the team is so much smaller than any other team I've worked on, and certainly much more professional.

In the end, they are all great people, and not a day goes by that I don't count myself lucky that my last job's door closed when it did, because I wouldn't have been so open to this opportunity had I still been gainfully employed.

I promise, my next entry will be something a little more relevant in terms of game design and development.

No Man Is Just a Number

2009-01-14T18:00:00.000-08:00

The creative mind and lead actor behind one of the most subversive, brilliant and layered bit of television died today. Patrick McGoohan was the first to really push the boundaries of Television as an artistic medium, and not merely as an entertainment artifice.

His seminal series, to which twisted, layered episodic TV such as Lost and Battlestar Galactica owes much to, was called The Prisoner. The series, ostensibly about a secret agent who is kidnapped because of his mysterious resignation, is one of the most complex stories ever written for television. The symbolism present, the subtle anti-conformist, anti-establisment and anti-government themes, and the fact that it is all timeless in its presentation is where the brilliance of the series really shines through.

The hero of the series, Number 6, was one of England's top spies. Out of the blue, he storms into his superiors office and in a thundering display, resigns his position and leaves the spy business forever. Followed as he returns home, he is gassed and falls unconscious, waking up in an anonymous little town called 'The Village'. Over the next 17 episodes, Number 6 defiantly stands up against his nemesis, Number 2, as he or she attempts to find out why Number 6 resigned.

The Prisoner is ultimately one man's fight for identity, principal and individuality in a society that seeks conformity to social norms, that a loner is dangerous, and that principals are a myth.

AMC is showing the entire series online right now, for free, and I highly recommend you check it out, it will change your life - it did mine.

You see, my father introduced me to The Prisoner. The irony in that is that my father is about as hardcore right wing conservative as they come, and here he is, introducing me to a TV Series that is absolutely brilliant, and is also absolutely some of the most libertarian and anarchistic
entertainment that has ever been aired on any major broadcast network.

It was this sinister yet sweet world of "The Village", with its terrifying (at least, to an 8 year old) Rover, and its defiantly independent hero who will go to great lengths to ensure that the principles that he so lustily defended are never compromised, that he is never broken, and that the individual is paramount in a world of sameness and conformity, that really began to shape my identity and political philosophy.

More importantly, it has become a guidepost for me in terms of writing and enjoying fiction. Some talk about how the includion of Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy into Bioshock was such a ground breaking piece of entertainment, but The Prisoner adheres so incredibly close to Objectivism that it took over 30 years for another work of art to even come close.

For those gamers that loved Bioshock, watch The Prisoner.
For those science fiction fans that love Lost, watch The Prisoner.

Enjoy and, be seeing you.

The Definitive Gameplay Theory

2008-12-29T07:44:00.000-08:00

I touched on this one one of my previous posts, and decided it was worth expanding into a whole thread dedicated to the subject: what makes a good game? This seems to be the gold nuggets that every developer and publisher strives to achieve, and few actually reach. Numerous, more experienced developers have written loads on this subject, and since the notion of gameplay and game design is clearly very close to my heart, I'm taking on the mantle of taking these lofty notions of theme, gameplay, and story and boiling it down to its most distilled essence.

Pure, unadulterated game design theory for the masses.

So, with that said, the first, and arguably most important, aspect of game development is gameplay. Good or even great gameplay will allow developers to slip in other areas (art, sound, story, etc.), because gamers won't really care about anything else. If the game is fun to play, then the game will sell.

Which leads me to my first theory of game design, The Definitive Gameplay Theory, which states: If the play experience provided by the game is clear, specific and refined, the gameplay is definitive and therefore desired.

The definitive theory is observable in numerous games of all stripes. Since games as entertainment have existed since antiquity, it has been the games that fullfilled the three criteria of the Definitive Gameplay Theory (Chess, Go, Backgammon) that we still play and enjoy today.

But with the speed of development, use and discard of games these days, the Definitive Gameplay Theory illustrates how the best games on a year to year basis achieve immortality. So, to illustrate: let's look at three great games to come out in the last five years and see if the Theory can be put to the test:

Tetris: the epitome of the theory. It doesn't get more clear, concise and refined as using random geometric shapes to balance between building and eliminating an ever growing base of fallen pieces. The game is simple, elegant, and definitive.

Grand Theft Auto Series: while the GTA series has always been linked to its gangster storylines, the gameplay has always been built around a huge open world as the primary focus. Since the days of the P200 GTA that shipped on 3.5" Floppys as shareware, the GTA series has always pushed the envelope when it came to content, whether it be controversial dialog or technological with it's massive cityscapes.

Final Fantasy Series: Classic Final Fantasy has always centered around turn-based combat. The RPG elements are there to lend depth and control to the player, but in the end, it's turn-based gameplay writ large. By following a stream of menus, the players perform the functions needed to play the game. Based on the original Ultima series (which, in turn, was based on Dungeons and Dragons), Final Fantasy core gameplay is easy to use and get into, thus, making it accessible to play.

So, how does this translate into making a good game? It means the best developers pick one (at most, two) core gameplay features and ensure that they permeate the entire game experience, polishing them to a high sheen and ensures that they are essential to the entire game. These features are typically genre defining conventions, and often are technologically driven to differentiate the new game from previous, current or future competitors. Limiting innovations to one or two features ensures that these gameplay crucial features recieve the time and attention needed to polish them to a high sheen.

Too often, as been my experience, developers and publishers alike push for more and more features, expecting that the shotgun effect - throw in as many features as possible and hope something sticks (something I call the 'Network TV Casting Effect'). The games that sell the best aren't a shotgun but a laser beam.

Civilization: Colonization

2008-12-23T12:32:00.000-08:00

I'm an absolute whore for the Civilization series, and whenever a new expansion back comes out, I'm usually the first to go pick it up and play it.

I loved the original boardgame, but the series didn't really sink it's hooks into me until Civ II. I missed the first because, well, I didn't own a PC - I had a sexy Apple IIe (with 2, count em, 2 5 1/4 floppy disk drives). But, in college, two games caused me to loose a lot of sleep: Frontpage Sports Football and Civilization II.

So, when Civ III came out, and by that time, I had graduated school and gotten married, I jumped in with two hands and head firmly ready for some rewriting of history. What I got with CivIII was a overly complex mess. Too many resources muddled down exploration and forced civilizations to place more cities in play to gather critical resources. Example: saltpeter is required for making gunpowder in the real world, but its inclusion in the game made it one of the most useful early resource in the game, without it, no gunpowder, no musketry, and domination by an opposing civilization.

Anyway, I digress, Civ III left a bad taste in my mouth, but when I heard more and more about Civ IV, I sighed in relief. Not only did they simplify the game after the twisted mess of Civ III, they made the game far more maliable and moddable. After Civ IV, and it's outstanding mod, Rhyes and Fall of Civilization, I was hooked again. So, when they released Civ: Colonization, I knew I had to get it because there was finally a game that combined two of my obsessions: The Era of Exploration and Video Games.

So, the game, its outstanding. Of course, it requires some micromanagement (it wouldn't be a Civ game without it) and the game is sufficently challenging, even on the easier difficulty levels. If you enjoy the Civilization series, you can't go wrong with Colonization. That being said, the game is ugly. Civilization has never been a gorgeous game, but Colonizations UI palette is horrible - a real step backwards.

So, if you need me, I'll be attempting to break the subjegation from my Imperious ruler.

Everyone is working for the weekend

2008-12-21T12:15:00.000-08:00

Well, my working has encompassed the following:

- Getting my Aunt's stereo hooked up: She's got her house wired for sound, but is a complete neophyte when it comes to technology, so I spent the morning getting all of the various channels hooked up. Small price to pay since she is letting me stay with her, rent free, until Gina and I can find a house up here in Tulsa. Long story short, the stereo is hooked up, sounds great, and over Christmas, Christmas tunes can be blared throughout the house. Ho Ho Ho.

- Laundry: Not much to say about that; its laundry, if you're interested in how I do my chores, well, you need to get away from the computer a bit, constant reader.

- Ace Combat 6: I know this is from the "About frakin' time" pile, but I wanted a new game to kill time over the weekends for my 360 and didn't want to drop a hundred bucks on the new Guitar Hero World Tour Guitar-only kit. The game is gorgeous. The dialog is unbelievably funny. Not just a little funny with wonky translations, its as if someone just took the Japanese dialog and literally translated it into English. Why don't these Japanese companies hire English writers to clean up (or, rather, nuance up) their literal translations into a more fluid text.

Right now, I tune out of the in-game dialog and skip the cut scenes. The narration and dialog irritates me as a writer.

So, to summarize: the game is fun to play, gorgeous to look at, but skip the cut scenes, you'll thank me later.

I'm heading home for Christmas on the 23rd. I'll try to post from home, and maybe get a picture or two from the family posted as well.

If I don't post before then: Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Left 4 Dead

2008-12-19T11:20:00.000-08:00

I was absolutely not surprised when Left 4 Dead released and it wound up being an absolute gorgeous marriage of technology and design.

For those that say games aren't art, I would gladly offer up Left 4 Dead to refute those claims, particularly if playing online with a group of friends. The claustrophobia of some of the levels, with their sparse lighting and narrow confines makes the sound of the shuffling undead and the dreaded super zombies that much more terrifying. The game provides emotional moments, both funny and terrifying, so if that doesn't qualify as art, then I don't know what does.

Which leads me to a little commentary: I've worked at three studios thus far. Two of them thought very highly of themselves, trying to make something greater than themselves. One succeeded on their first attempt, and has never been able to recapture their former glory. One has consistently put out product on time, under budget, creating one of the bigger sex symbols of the PS2/Xbox generation of games.

After admiring L4D, I now understand why both companies have never reached those heights again: neither of them had the strength of design (or testicular fortitude) to pick one or two really solid game concepts, polish them to a diamond sheen and base the entirety of the game around it. But take the concept of zombie horror movies as a central theme, and in terms of game design, build the entire game around required multiplayer support (both cooperative and adversarial) and a dynamically scaling AI that you have this game. No fancy physics mechanics. No flashy quick-press sequences (looking at you God Of War) . Combat is surprisingly simple, but incredibly addictive; nothing beats blasting brainless zombie hordes and dealing with crafty super zombies.

This has really been the year of creative games - and unfortunately, sales have just not been that strong (perhaps, due to the economy). Some excellent new IPs came out this year: Dead Space, GRID, Bloom Blox, Sins of a Solar Empire. And what I've noticed between the really good games (new IP or no) and the medicore games is that the medicore games either try to do too much (too many good ideas, not enough time to polish them all).

Hardcore players appreciate a polished experience and are willing to forgive depth if the game is fun. L4D is definitely NOT deep, but it is a lot of fun.

Musings on Casual Design

2008-12-17T12:03:00.000-08:00

So, I've been thinking a lot about casual games and casual game design. By and large, classic arcade games (Pac Man, Asteroids, Centipede, etc) are pretty close to the epitome of casual games for the following reasons:

1) By and large, can be played and enjoyed in less than ten minutes
2) Simple controls mean instant awareness and gameplay capabilities
3) Bright colors and simple interface make initial learning curve extremely shallow

Now, I mentioned that they are close to the epitome, and in one level, they are not, their difficulty. The classic arcade games could be devilishly hard, and justifiably so: if folks didn't plop in their quarters, the game wasn't making any money, and defeated the purpose of the arcade game.

Which brings me to Casual Games, everyone knows that Casual Games need to be:
1) accessible: if someone can't pick up and begin playing the game within a short amount of time (5 minutes), then your game is not casual.
2) easy to understand interface: if someone can't make heads or tails of the game within the first two minutes, your game isn't accessible to a casual market.
3) shallow initial learning curve: if someone can't potentially be successful in the game within the first life, your game isn't accessible to a casual market.
4) short, sweet experience: if it takes more than 10 minutes to have a meaningful gameplay experience, your game isn't accessible to a casual market.

But what about depth?

Interesting question, casual games can have incredible depth. Reversi (I had a copy when it was known as Othello) an outstanding casual game. The rules are incredibly easy, the game board simple, its easy to learn the rules, and can be played by just about everyone. Reversi also has an incredible depth of strategy, maximizing your points while minimizing someone elses.

After working on games that predominantly skew toward gamers familiar with the conventions of video and computer games, I find the thought of designing casual games an interesting mental exercise.

Curious Silence

2008-12-17T04:45:00.000-08:00

Dear Old Friend,

Two years ago, you helped me get a job down in your home town. It wasn't without some irony that I was the one that encouraged you to get the job you know hold, and now you were working to get me a job at the same company.

Up until that point, our closest point of contact was email. We'd met in chat rooms, communicated via ICQ and later MSN Messenger. We'd put our collective creativity together several times with great results. We communicated well, and on more than one occasion, had a clarity of creative vision that had not experienced with another person before. So, in working with you directly, I was expecting that sort of collaboration once again.

And it all started out very well. I should have seen the warning signs within the first few weeks, but I convinced myself it would get better. I could feel an undercurrent of fear, that questioning decisions made by some in management would either be seen as insubordination or grounds for termination. I even mentioned it at one point when we went out for lunch, to which I respond "Well, not at this point, but I certainly feel the undercurrents that I could be fired unless I fell into line even if I feel the decisions are bad."

It wasn't for another 8 or 9 months that the reality of the situation really presented itself. And when I was let go, I certainly was surprised, but to be honest, it was not unexpected. I was already looking around, and within a week, I had two phone interviews, within 2 weeks, I had my first onsite interview, and within 3 weeks, my first offer, and within a month, 2 offers, and another two onsite interviews planned. I've since moved on, and I wouldn't have had the opportunity I have now had it not been for your hardwork in getting me that job, so thank you!

The petty side of me is finding satisfaction that many of my major warnings are finally being heeded, after being proven in code that they were indeed bad ideas. I lament the fact that it took several months to illustrate just how bad those ideas were, particularly in how little time there was in the schedule for error, and that no one else had the balls or the conviction that push back with me, particularly when folks around the table knew they were bad ideas and that it was a waste of time. Which only serves to reinforce my opinion of the undercurrents in that company.

I made several good friends who I would gladly work with again down there, and I worked with others that, I can honestly say, that I would actively discourage others from working with, and would point people elsewhere who ask me about joining that company. I've already been asked my opinion by several folks getting ready to get out of school and I told them to look elsewhere or be ready to move on after the project ships.

There are great people there, but there are also...somewhat gifted amateurs...and the worst thing is: the benefits are terrible. For such a large company, the health benefits are a joke, the relocation package are laughable, and despite all of the rah-rah from management, nothing is done to keep morale up. And it's down, really down. Even in my first project, where we crunched for six months, Morale was never bad there as it is in that office. I'd expect that most of the folks that are working there that have worked elsewhere will leave as soon as the project goes gold, assuming it reaches that state. Not a commentary on the state of the project, mind you, but I've worked on enough projects to know that nothing is certain until it goes out for duplication.

But, you know, there is one discouraging thing that continues to haunt me to this day: your silence since the day I was let go. No email. No MSN. No XBL Voice or Text. Nothing. Silence. My email hasn't changed - I know you have it somewhere. My instant message capabilities have not diminished or changed.

That hurts, and I thought we were friends enough to not let something like this come between us. But, it looks like I was wrong.

So, I'm writing this as some catharsis (funny how that works here on a Blog). I don't think you'll ever read it unless one of our mutual friends points you to this humble bit of cyberjunk. I just want you to know I don't blame you. It didn't work out, and I likely hung myself by pushing for many things that was against managements wishes (and, as it turns out, I was right, and given the circumstances, I will say this: I told you so!), but believe me when I say: I was already looking to leave, and my dismissal simply showed me the door.

I will close with two things:
1) I learned a lot in my time there (see my previous posts), and feel I have grown a lot as a Game Designer.
2) I hope you move on at some point and see how other companies do things. I told those to many of folks down there, particularly those who were new to the industry and that was their first job. The company doesn't do a lot of things right, in fact, I can count on one hand the number of things they do right, and you and everyone else that has not worked elsewhere would be better served seeing how other companies do things.

I'll be the one that breaks the silence, and I'll likely point you at my blog so you can read this so I don't have to write it again.

Talk to you soon.

Frak the Weather

2008-12-16T17:43:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like the travel snafu in Chicago has meant that my wife won't be flying in tonight, and instead, flying in this morning.

So much for a wonderful night together, spent in orgasmic bliss.

Frak me.

Frak the Weather.

Frak its cold

2008-12-16T09:40:00.000-08:00

We had a high here in Tulsa of 19 degrees yesterday, and expecting a high of 30 today.

19! 30!

And what is the high supposed to be on Friday? 60! In the span of four days, we're going from deep winter to midfall temperatures. Warm, Cold, Warm, Cold. My balls can't take much more of this!

The house hunt continues; the best news is how much response my wife has gotten from nearby hospitals and doctors doing research who need a CCRC (Certified Clinical Research Coordinator, for the layman), as well as an RN.

Considering that we see her going back to work as a good thing both financially and socially, since Max will have to be enrolled in school or daycare, it's a win win.

On the house searching has been narrowed down to five or six homes, and, well, my Mom has volunteered to come down to Houston and watch the boy so Gina can come up here and interview as well as experience the cold icy embrace of northeastern Oklahoma.

Did I mention I haven't seen her since Thanksgiving.

It will be epic. Simply Epic.

...and the Vault Dweller lives on now, but only in memory...

2008-12-15T19:24:00.000-08:00

So, I played through Bethesda's Magnum Opus Fallout 3 (with props out to Josh, Phil and Nate). I was a huge fan of the original Fallout series, and had long hoped that the pixelated violence and quirky sense of humor would be accurately replicated in this latest entry in this series.

The more I played it, the more I realized that the game is exquisitely written, but there was something missing in terms of the campaign. It wasn't that the game was too short, quite the contrary, the campaign was satisfyingly long with plenty of content and colorful characters. The problem I had was that the speed at which I gained XP far outpaced my participation in quests. I barely got into the main quest, focusing instead on side quests that took me throughout the capital wasteland. By the time I got around to getting on with the main quest, I was nearly level 20.

And in looking at my achievement listings, it looks like I completed about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the side quests.

Why is the level cap so low at level 20? Or, more importantly, why is the XP curve so gracious as to let a player max the level cap without completing more of the side quests?

So, in that regard, I was disappointed. By the time I started into the campaign, I had nearly maxed out my XP, and so combat at the end in what was supposed to be the most difficult combat turned into a laugh.

Began with such great promise, and ended with a bit of a whimper.

New Job, Thoughts on the Old Job

2008-12-15T13:06:00.000-08:00

Well, I was let go from my job in Houston a little over a two months ago. Don't worry, in less than three weeks, I had no less than five job offers from around the country. I find myself working at a new job, better pay, better people, better potential. None of the political or bureaucratic crap of my last job, and while I'm not working on "AAA Game of the Year", and, I haven't been this happy since I got my first job.

Alright, I need to have some catharsis, so, here we go:

If I ever own my own game development studio, I learned the following:

If you are going to pay top dollar for experienced talent - use it, exploit it. Don't be arrogant, thinking that the way it is done now is the way it must be; let your new talent challenge assumptions and the processes.
If you are going to pay top dollar for world class technology, be prepared to modify your workflow to fully embrace that technology. Licensing an engine means understanding the workflow of the company that made it and bending your processes to that method; if you try to fight that, you're going to spend a lot of time, energy, and effort trying to shoehorn in what you think is right, even if its suboptimal to the workflow established by the creators.
Too much secrecy is a morale killer. Game Developers love what they do - they get excited when they are working on something cool - and then telling them they can't talk to each other about what they are working on is killer. Secrecy makes good sense in worrying about with people outside of the office, for obvious reasons, but within the office, is really hurts.
Sending memos asking people to limit discourse in the office is a morale killer. See above. And, more importantly, good game development is all about communication. Stifle that, and you might as well put out the "Help Wanted" sign, because people will leave.
Micromanagement is a killer. Good Leads ensure people stay on task, they don't tell people how to do their jobs as long as the end product performs as requested and is optimized for performance. Present subordinates with a problem and let them solve it - you'll often be amazed at the results.
Not everyone is going to be happy, but learn who the talkers are and convince them what is happening a good thing. In every team, there are the most vocal folks and they drive the morale of the company. Don't ignore the problems, and don't say "this is always the way we've done things" because that means nothing to someone that you brought into the company - if they see problems, explain the process. If they point out flaws in the process, don't ignore them and if you do ignore them, more importantly, don't look for input and then tell people that change is not coming. That is brutal for morale and, for folks not intimately tied to the company, will have them running for the door. Game Development is one of the few corporate ventures where everyone can express their creativity toward a common goal, and contrary to what you tell yourself, there are always other jobs.
Worry about word of mouth from former employees. The game industry is still small, but word gets out fast when it comes to how a company does business. Like all business, the best thing you can get is positive word of mouth.
Benefits are more than free dinners and soft drinks.
Retain experienced, senior-level staff. The best companies in the industry retain more than leads and recruit more than entry level staff. If you have trouble keeping your mid level employees, you have problems. Either they are under payed, overworked, under appreciated or feel ignored and marginalized, or all of the above. Game Developers can be incredibly loyal, but, that loyalty only goes to a point - and given how much interest a experienced developer gets on the open market, retaining them should be top priority. Entry-level folks can burn out. Mid to Senior-level are in it for the long haul; most have seen the fire of crunch and wear it with a badge of pride.
Disagreeing with Management isn't insubordination, particularly if they go ahead and do what is asked for anyway. Good management is all about communication, and if you aren't communicating properly - no matter how many meetings or verbose emails you send - expect their to be miss communications. Further, if you have someone create something, and you as a manager have preconceived notions on what that something should be , don't be surprised if what is created doesn't match your notions. Also, don't be surprised if you, as a lead, have to fight to have your idea used, particularly if someone else was instrumental in designing a system.
Object Oriented Design is only as good as the long term plans allow. People are more willing to work in the more generic, esoteric designs if they know that the hard work they are doing now is going to be used multiple times - see the discussion about secrecy above. However, if no plans are made (or are communicated) as to the next project, expect morale to take a huge hit as people work extremely hard for a one-project game, creating code and designing systems that may or may not be used again.
Be realistic with your development schedule. If management wants more out of the game, get estimates sooner and modify appropriately. Minimize wasting development time on systems and content for something you never had the time or manpower to address anyway.
Be prepared for people to challenge management, particularly on creative things. Management needs to be prepared to either compromise or abandon their ideas if they are either unfeasible or are simply bad ideas. Wasting time to indulge management kills morale and, more importantly, will waste time. This is not always possible, particularly if they are expressed at the start as being core to the game, so this is a two-way street. Management needs to be willing to abandon ideas that test poorly. Talent needs to be willing to embrace other ideas that test well.

I wish well of my former colleagues, and if the game is a success, it will be a success despite the creative direction and management, not because of it. Which is a shame, the IP has potential.

Anyway...

I'm currently working at a startup, surrounded by industry veterans that have been behind some huge hits. Communication is open and free, which means we actually talk less and get more done. We're incredibly incentivized, and everyone is busting their asses. More to the point, I'm working on something I never thought I'd work on, and its much more stimulating than my last job.

We're having fun, and after a year and a half of work, its a welcome change.

The Bourne Conspiracy

2008-05-08T05:16:00.000-07:00

Alright, I'll admit it, I'm a huge Bourne fan. I enjoyed the books back in the day, and really enjoyed its reinvention recently with Matt Damon. So when I saw that they were making a game based on the books, but in the style of the movies, called The Bourne Conspiracy, I was appropriately excited.

So, I downloaded the demo on XBL and fired it up. The opening splash screen, punctuated by the look and music of the Matt Damon films built it up.

And then I started playing the game.

The Unreal 3 Engine can put together some gorgeous games (see Rainbow 6:Vegas, Gears of War) and it can put together some really ugly games (see Stranglehold, Blacksite: Area 51). Unfortunately, The Bourne Conspiracy falls more into the Stranglehold camp than the Gears of War camp. I hope they put some sort of post-processing filter on the game, because if the Art Direction was to purposefully create art assets that uniformly bland and washed out, then they succeeded.

The character models are appropriate, but the animations are stiff. Character movement is wonky - Bourne doesn't move like he has a purpose, he moves like he just rolled out of bed and needs to spend five minutes stretching. This is only exacerbated by the fact that there are really cool cinematic portions to the fights that show some really good, creative animation sequences that flow well.

Which segues nicely into the combat system. The gunplay takes a little getting used to, the controls are slightly different than your average Third-Person shooter, but if you are familiar with other console games of the genre, you should be able to get into that portion of the game quickly. The melee combat system, which is supposed to be the meat and potatoes of the game, is made of instant spuds and spam, not roast beef and idaho golds. High Noon, the developers, dropped in some twitch-button sequences to spice up the melee combat sequences, but the sequences fail spectacularly for one big reason: buffer time. The melee system is pure button mashing, but the twitch-button sequences happen so fast, and with so short a buffer time, that when you are learning the feel for the system, you tend to accidentally "miss" the sequence because you were busy pressing one of the attack buttons trying to furiously pummel the enemy.

Finally, there are some definite cheese in the naming of some of the systems. For example, the alternate vision mode to turn on your minimap and view your next checkpoint is called "Bourne Instincts". That was the best name they could come up with? When I saw it, I audibly groaned.

I think the game will garner ratings between 70-75. They tried way too much, IMO, and in the end, didn't seem to get the chance to polish all of it.

Classes and Accessibility

2008-02-19T12:49:00.000-08:00

I've been talking quite a bit to folks around the office as well as fellow developers about MMOs. Since I've been a lifelong roleplaying gamer, going all the way back to the Red Box of Dungeons and Dragons as well as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1st Edition), there is a certain vernacular that a generation of gamers - call them Generation N - are used to using and have become accepted terms across a variety of genres.

One of the core aspects of Dungeons and Dragons is the notion of "classes". That is, Classes serve a set of predefined terms, abilities, and modifiers that skew that character to a specific role in the group. When someone reads "Fighter", or "Thief", they have an expectation. Not only does this provide a specific level of tactical invisibility - people know what they can and cannot do, based on which class they provide - but it also provides an unappreciated but definitely required accessibility for both experienced and the new player.

Accessibility is a huge part of MMO design (and Game Design in general) if you want your game to carry more than 100,000 subscribers, and the one thing that the high population MMO games all share is their commitment and use of classes. Classes give experienced players a preconcieved notion as to the capabilities of their character from inception, and let inexperienced players easily identify with their character abilities and be able to play effectively from the start.

It's easy to look at WoW and say that is the paradigm for classes and accessibility - and you'd be right. The numbers of subscribers, and simply put, the ease at which it guides a player from 1-60 is something that all developers should stop and admire. Whether you agree with their art style or lore choices, you can't ignore that Blizzard always gives you something to do, somewhere to go, and something else to see along a highly polished path.

Unfortunately, when classes have been implemented in MMO's, few games embrace one of the key aspects of a class-based system: multiple clases. Multiple Classes allows more hardcore players to expand and try additional classes while sticking to what they know and enjoy and creates a player-driven, optional layer of depth that games like WoW are missing. Too bad more games haven't tried something similar as Final Fantasy XI.

I should devote some time to talking about why I don't like Skill-based systems that eschew classes entirely, but I think my strongest arguement is in the continuing popularity of games that use classes as their means of character progression. WoW, Everquest/EQ2, Lineage 1/2, LOTRO, all have done exceptionally well with a class-based systems, far outpacing their skill-based bretheren.

Which begs the question: do skill-based games fail to draw in casual gamers due to the inherent obtuse nature of skill-based progression?

Is this thing on?

2008-02-18T13:55:00.000-08:00

Well, seeing as how I work in the dreaded and feared video game industry, I figured I would join the likes of - well, just about every other hip designer I know - and maintain a blog. Now, for those that know me, prior to my involvement in Game Design, I tried keeping a blog.

Several of them, in fact.

Ultimately, however, apathy and my general inclination to play video games rather than discuss and analyze them (as well as the politics of others) trended me away from actually posting.

Now that a lot of that is behind me, the politics anyway, I'm still getting help for that whole general inclination thing.

That aside, I hope to be posting every day, barring that, every other day regarding game design, video games in general, and whatever other pop culture notion that crosses my desk.

Currently Playing:
PC: Lord of the Rings: Shadows of Angmar, Team Fortress 2
360: Dead Rising
Music: Why Do You Let Me Stay Here? - She and Him