Laundry Sessions

Musicians: Lay Off, its just a toy!

2007-11-28T19:32:00.001-05:00

Its been multiple years since I even read my own blog here, let alone post to it. But I need to rant.

I love Rock Band. I love Guitar Hero.

Do you know what I don't love right now? Musicians.

Articles like this one on Slate just dredge up all the issues that these games have created.

The condescension that real-life musicians seem to bring to every RB/GH conversation is really getting on my nerves. I just want them to relax and let the rest of us pretend for a while. Its a toy, you know? Their base line assumption is that by playing these toy instruments, somehow we think we are playing the real ones. I guess this puts us in the category of posers in their mind. Many of us can't play instruments or arent musically talented.

So please, musicians, let me have my pretend music. Let me enjoy a video game and my toy drum set. Let me be escapist. Stop complaining that Rock Band's songs aren't realistic. They are fun. Stop saying I should just learn to play on my own. I won't.

And if you can't relax and enjoy yourselves, then you wont be invited to my next Rock Band party.

Laundry Sessions Retired and Archived - UPDATED

2007-02-28T23:58:00.000-05:00

UPDATE: I've decided that LS should just remain here. No point in archiving it at a different site... Plus OrangeDeca decided to continue posting here... so we ought to keep it active.

Original post:

Laundry Sessions has been retired and archived at laundrysessions.clubberjack.net. LS could someday come out of retirement, but for now it will reside in stasis at clubberjack.net.

Anti-Episodic

2006-04-19T16:11:00.000-04:00

I've got some deeper ruminations on episodic development/content and digital distribution coming, but in the meantime, here's a link to an analyst's look at episodic development. It's an interesting read, and the author comes to some different conclusions.

GDC 2006: Awards

2006-04-01T12:25:00.000-05:00

The awards show this year gave me a lot of hope for the future. As usual, the Independent Game Festival provided much inspiration with diverse designs and fierce creativity.

However, it was the more "mainstream" Game Developers Choice Awards that illustrated an expansion of our perception of what games can be. Four games swept the awards: Guitar Hero, Shadow of the Colossus, Nintendogs, and Psychonauts. Not coincidentally, three of those games (Guitar Hero, Colossus, and Nintendogs) were also honored for innovation.

New designs, non-game play, beautiful atmosphere, (good) humorous writing, and so much more. Congratulations to the winners. As Chris Hecker said: "Games are f**king awesome!"

GDC 2006: Best Quote of the Day (March 22)

2006-03-23T04:31:00.000-05:00

"Some people excel at lunch."
-Harvey Smith in the Creative Director Roundtable

GDC 2006: Best Design Nuggets from the Serious Games Summit

2006-03-22T03:32:00.000-05:00

The Serious Games Summit was reasonably interesting this year. I attended a mix of design, education, and business sessions. Here are a few of my favorite design nuggets from the past two days:

Fading between the surface depiction of the world and a representation (diagram?) of the underlying system dynamics. [John Black, Teachers College of Columbia University]
Leadership training and team building in MMOs. [Lisa Galarneau]
The concept of convexity mapped onto a flow graph. [Noah Falstein]
Clear goals = clear failure, which is not always good for a given player. [Jesper Juul]
Games as interfaces for real work (ie playing a game is your work). [?]
Overlaying grid lines on a world to teach coordinate plane concepts. [Tabula Digita]
Simple AI can be built to take advantage of human attribution. [Nigel Papworth]

There are more, but I'm wiped out now. I'll revisit this post another day and see what I missed.

GDC 2006

2006-03-22T03:30:00.000-05:00

I am currently at GDC 2006. This year, instead of promising to write up every session (we all saw how well that went for me last year), I'm just going to post whatever I feel like whenever I feel like it. Enjoy!

HUD-less Horsemen

2006-03-15T13:06:00.000-05:00

A couple of recent articles have debated the relative merits (and anti-merits) of heads-up displays (HUDs) in videogames.

Wilson contends that HUDs get in the way of immersion by distracting from the "realistic" elements of the game. On the other hand, Thompson claims that well-designed HUDs make information accessible to the player in such as way as to keep focus on the main experience. Both are interesting perspectives. From a design perspective though, I think the most useful thing about dropping the HUD is the creativity it forces. Without a HUD to fall back on, designers have come up with some really ingenious ways to convey information to the player.

On the other hand, arbitrarily dumping the HUD seems dangerous. Even Fumito Ueda, who famously went HUD-less with Ico, brought some elements back onto the screen with his equally atmospheric Shadow of the Collossus. His comments are illuminating:

"When we said ... Ico is not a conventional video game title, we set limitations on ourselves for the development of the game. We had to eliminate everything that made it look like a video game. But for our next game, we wanted to remove those artificial limitations that we placed on ourselves. We wanted to just make a game that was fun. If a limitation made the game less fun, we weren't going to restrict ourselves."

PS. People who write about games should agree to stop using bad HUD puns. I will if you will.

Hardcore Casual: A New Audience?

2005-12-18T23:49:00.000-05:00

It's funny, as I was playing some Shadow of the Colossus the other night, I was thinking about my play style and how it meshed with Shadow's design. The game affords real progress in short segments (ie, I can usually bring down a colossus in 30 min. or so). This fits nicely in my busy, adult schedule. On the other hand, the game is involved enough to really grab me. It presents interesting and deep challenges trimmed in wonderful art direction and truly cinematic camera work. Shadow of the Colossus seems to me to be simultaneously Casual and Hardcore.

The very next day, I noticed an article in the Escapist, that addressed this issue from a demographic side. The author describes himself as "Hardcore Casual," a former hardcore gamer whose life has caught up and who can no longer devote himself to the hardcore gamer lifestyle (nor does he want to). He has the taste of a hardcore gamer, but not the time or patience (or funds). While I've never thought of myself as hardcore, I think that my tastes run beyond casual, and the term hardcore casual feels like a pretty accurate description of my approach to games. If a game doesn't grab me, I generally don't give it too much of a chance.

The big question to my mind is this: Is hardcore casual a big enough market to design and produce games for? I would like to think the answer is yes. As the first generations of gamers hit so-called maturity, I think the hardcore casual market will grow. Likewise, as gaming becomes a more prominent part of pop culture, even casual gamers will move towards the hardcore, making the hardcore casual group a pretty sweet target for gamemakers. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part (I guess it's natural to want more games for me).

Appropriate Levels of Realism

2005-12-05T13:38:00.000-05:00

Clive Thompson brings his usual insight to bear on the topic of the Uncanny Valley in Xbox 360 launch titles in this recent Wired News article. What got me thinking is his reference to the manga/anime techique of juxtaposing realistic surroundings with iconic or even cartoonish characters. In Understanding Comics, Scott McCloud references this same style and even goes as far as to describe how it influences our empathy with the characters. The more iconic the depiction of a character, the easier it is for the reader (or player, in game terms) to identify with that character. The reverse is also true. The more realistic the rendering of a person, place, or object, the easier it is for the reader/player to objectify.

Thompson references the Xbox 360 title Kameo as an example of this sort of thing in action. I wonder if other games (or perhaps all games to varying extents) consciously use this technique to enhance a player's immersion in the game.

The Real Control Revolution

2005-11-28T13:56:00.000-05:00

A lot is being said about Nintendo's Revolution controller. 1up.com has a nice piece in which they talk to third-party developers about the possibilities of moving beyond tech demos into real, fully-fleshed-out game designs. As I was reading the ideas from Foundation 9's Chris Charla and the other interviewees, I realized that the kind of one-to-one interaction that most people are looking for from the Revolution controller is, in fact, the wrong way to approach this new control system. Everyone immediately thinks of sword fighting (or lightsaber duels) as the "killer app" for the new controller, imagining players swinging the controller to hack away at enemies. However, I believe that the real innovation is much more subtle.

Though current controllers can be scary and off-putting in their complexity (at least to the mainstream "non-gamer"), I would argue that they do their job admirably. There's a reason that the Xbox 360 and the PS3 aren't making significant jumps in controller design. After some simple tutorials, most (good) games have their players performing amazing feats and managing complex systems, all mediated and manipulated through the controller. In the best games, the controller becomes transparent, and the player's desires are translated seamlessly into action. Ideally, it's like driving a car; at first, a new driver is aware (sometimes painfully) of the gas pedal, the brake pedal, the steering wheel, and all of the other controls. But with some practice, the car's interface becomes transparent, and the car becomes an extension of the driver's body. Likewise, most players begin a game conscious of the controller but soon become unaware of it as their bodies are extended into the gameworld.

When I look at the Revolution controller, I don't see players jumping around their living rooms, slashing wildly; I see a more subtle shift towards a faster learning curve (ie, players will be getting to that transparency point faster). Players will still sit on the couch as they play most games. The big slashing motions that we're all imagining will probably be more like flicks of the wrist. It's a less flashy picture to be sure, but I think it's still a huge leap forward. Moving the controller is a much more natural and intuitive interface than a joystick (think about all the people who wave the controller around anyway even though they know it won't do anything), and that initial ease will help drop the learning period closer to zero. Even in established genres, this easier control system will help out. For instance, the issue of "look inversion" in first-person shooters will be basically solved.

By making the interface easier to learn, Nintendo will certainly reduce the intimidation factor, opening up new potential audiences for games, which is, of course, their stated goal. In addition, the new controller will facilitate additional types of interactions that are more diffifcult to map to conventional controllers, such as orchestra conducting, surgery, and so on as shown in their promotional materials. I just don't think full-motion swordfighting will be the killer app.

Destiny of Heroes: Narrative Elements from Linearity

2005-11-09T02:22:00.000-05:00

I've often thought of non-linear and emergent stories as the true destiny of interactive narrative in games. However, there are some features of linear games such as God of War (and many, many others) that reinforce the narrative in a particularly pleasing way. Brett Douville has written a thoughtful post about God of War, which got me thinking...

In God of War, the player character is actually defined through the atrocities that he is forced to commit in order to advance through the game. One puzzle (the one that Douville focuses on) includes a human sacrifice that must be perpetrated by the player in order to advance. I would argue that this actually helps the player to feel the simultaneous savagery and horror that define the character of Kratos.

I wonder too if perhaps linearity might contribute to a sense of destiny or fate, elements often associated with heroes or antiheroes. In an interview with Eurogamer, Fumito Ueda has this to say about the idea of multiple endings (and therefore choice) in Shadow of the Colossus: "What I was trying to do, is each time you killed the colossi you can't escape from your own fate..." As the plot moves forward, the player cannot escape from destiny or fate.

Hugh Bowen's recently released study on the current state of emotion in games indicates that players experience a range of emotions during games and that role-playing games are the most cited genre for emotional experience. Far-and-away, the most cited series of games was Final Fantasy, which is heavily linear. In fact, most of the emotional elements of Final Fantasy take place in the cutscenes, which are about as linear as you can get. Is linearity in fact the key to emotion in games?

I don't buy that, but I do think that there are some interesting place to explore in this territory.

Perhaps linearity helps us feel like heroes. We follow the path which destiny (the game designer) has laid out for us. We forge on, courageous with little choice. Perhaps, when we have more choice, our actions reflect more on ourselves, and it is harder to feel heroic. The more choice, the more the game is like real life, in which there is no clear destiny.

Killer 7: Art? Hard to Say

2005-10-26T13:20:00.000-04:00

After my initial post about Killer 7 and its relation to art, I've actually played the game. Or rather, tried to play the game. If Killer 7 is art then it is analogous to a painting with a curtain over it.

In short, the control scheme was so torturously difficult that I couldn't get through more than 15 or 20 minutes of the game. I gave it the old college try more than once. I kept thinking "maybe this time, the art of the game will overwhelm my urge to give up." But no, I couldn't hack it, and as a result, I have no way of experiencing what sounds like a wonderful and disturbing surrealist vision of gaming.

I suppose that one could argue that the difficulty of the controls is an artistic statement in and of itself. However, it seems that the true artistic intent is located in the visuals and narrative. If this is the case than the developers have made their art largely inaccessible to me. Like I said, Killer 7 is a painting with a curtain in front of it, obscuring its beauty behind a prohibitive control scheme.

There must be a lesson here...

[see also Robin Hunicke's thoughts: "Detail wise, there are a ton of great little flourishes - but in the end, you have to wonder. Why didn’t they spend more time on the interface and level design?"]

Game Critics Hate the Third Act?

2005-09-26T12:56:00.000-04:00

While I was reading the reviews of Indigo Prophecy over the weekend I was pretty surprised to read how most of them criticized the games ending. I havent played it yet but it was kind of shocking to see the strong feelings the game's third act engendered in the reviewers. Then I realized something: most of these reviews read much more like a movie or play review than a game one. In fact most critics spent less than a third of their column inches on the graphics and gameplay and concentrated on what they saw as tight writing in some places and flawed writing in others. Gamespot even went so far as to say they wished they had cut 30 minutes from the first act and added 90 minutes to the final act. I've never heard a game reviewer saying anything like it. It seems to be a testament to how compelling the games interactive story was. I'm interested in checking it out.

To read some of the reviews, follow some of these links on the game's Metacritic page.

No Death for McGee

2005-09-23T15:10:00.000-04:00

I just read the interview with American McGee over at Idle Thumbs. Bad Day LA sounds like a pretty cool project (fantastic concept art from Kozyndan), and McGee's business model is pretty interesting from an indie development perspective. However, the thing that really caught my eye was this little tidbit about a "no death" mechanic:

The "no death" mechanic is super simple. Basically it means that if you die, you hit the ground for 5 seconds, then jump back up. This isn't really a "feature" as a crutch for novices to use while playing the game. This idea came about as I watched non-gamers struggling with the idea of save games, load games, and death in general. While hard-core gamers aren't going to care for this feature, we've found that novice gamers really appreciate how straightforward and non-confusing it is. By the way, this mode is ONLY available on the Easy Difficultly setting. Don't worry, I'll add in a "punish me" difficulty level for those of you who think that games should be annoying and frustrating instead of fun.

It's good to see someone questioning even the most basic tenets of game design.

Johnson, Koster, and Blizzard: Is WoW a Big Skinner box?

2005-09-20T23:17:00.000-04:00

I just finished reading Stephen Johnson's excellent book Everything Bad Is Good for You (Johnson's blog), and I've restarted reading Raph Koster's A Theory of Fun (book site here). Both books take a look at videogames (or in the case of Johnson, pop culture in general, including games) through the lens of learning and cognitive theory. Johnson posits that the increasing complexity of pop culture (especially as embodied in today's interactive media, ie. games and the internet) has contributed to an upward trend in general intelligence (see the Flynn Effect). According to Johnson, games provide a cognitive workout that isn't really available elsewhere in pop culture.

Koster comes at the same idea from the reverse direction, trying to explain why we like games. He comes up with the idea that our brains constantly hunger for patterns to decipher and understand ("grok" is the word Koster prefers). Games satisfy this hunger with simplified patterns which the player groks through play. The "fun" of the game is in understanding the pattern. The best games, according to Koster, bounce between challenging and do-able, never getting impossibly hard but never becoming too easy. The joy of learning the pattern is balanced by the introduction of new patterns.

These ideas were floating around in my head as I was playing World of Warcraft the other night. WoW does a great job of introducing new patterns at a satisfying pace. Just as I get a handle on one system, another is introduced to keep things interesting. It is certainly a triumph of design in this regard, keeping players interested far beyond the lifespan of most other games. However, I was talking about this with a friend (who has some knowledge of cognitive theory), and her response was "it's just a big Skinner box." This got me thinking about some of the more insidious teaching that is going on in WoW, and the conclusions are a bit scary.

My friend is not the first person to look at MMOGs as operant conditioning devices (this article at Joystick101.org looks at Skinnerian theory in the design of City of Heroes), but her comment got me thinking about what exactly is being conditioned. The conclusion I came to is this: MMOGs condition their players to grind. Even WoW, which seems to be the most popular (at least in the West) and certainly isn't unpleasant, essentially habituates players to the constant collection of xp through almost pointless means.

In operant conditioning, one teaching technique is to sometimes give a reward for each exhibition of the desired behavior. Basically, you teach the subject to operate on the potential of a reward as opposed to the actual reward. In WoW, the further you advance, the longer it is between rewards, and the more pointless grinding you have to do in the interim. At the beginning, you are rewarded with a new item or skill or level almost everytime you kill something or complete a quest. Soon however, the items become commonplace and the skills and levels are fewer and farther between, but you're doing just as much killing and questing in between. And everytime you do level or gain a new skill, it reinforces that feeling of potential reward, and you go right back to the grind.

Is this genius design at work? Or is WoW just a big Skinner box? Or are these options really one and the same?

Am I really this predictable?

PS. Both Johnson's and Koster's respective books are great. And also, WoW is pretty good.

Will Episodic Content Calcify Gameplay?

2005-09-08T17:41:00.000-04:00

As anyone who's read Laundry Sessions knows, we're big fans of episodic content (at least I am). SiN Episodes, Half-Life 2 expansions, Tell Tale's Bone, and others are all giving the episodic model a whirl, and a Half-Life mod team has recently adopted an episodic distribution model as well. With the episodic distribution of content gaining steam (pun intended), I have to raise one question:

Will episodic content lead to stagnation in gameplay?

Here's why this comes to mind: If individual game experiences are only a couple hours long, there isn't really time for players to learn complicated interfaces. I suspect that interfaces and control schemes will become even more standarized than they already are in order to afford quick "pick-up-and-play" experiences. In general, I think this sort of standardization will be good, making games more accessible and saving developers time. However, will the need to conform to some adhoc standard interface prevent developers from trying something new?

Film formats were standardized around the time that film became a mass medium. Generally, this is seen as a good thing and even a contributing factor in the maturation of film as an artform. However, it also cut out a lot of experimentation. On the other hand, I guess the constraints of standardized formats also provide a fertile ground for experimentation. Plus, people will always find places to experiment outside the standards of the mainstream.

Now that I think about it, I remember that gameplay isn't really the same thing as interface/control scheme. The gravity gun in HL2 is a good example of a gameplay innovation within a standard control scheme.

So anyway, I don't think episodic content will kill innovation, but I just had to raise the question.

The Future of Online

2005-09-01T17:23:00.000-04:00

I've been quoted as saying that the future of online gaming is on the console. I firmly believe that the PC , which is now the major player in online, will become less relevant. This is one reason why I am so interested what the next gen's online offerings will be like.

In that spirit here are two interesting updates:

The XBox 360 will be very restrictive. Microsoft is including a laundry list of requirements for developers who want to make a game for the new console. Included in this list are things like keeping enough memory available for one-on-one chat between games, having their UI available to slide in from the side in every game, making all the background music replaceable by player's own soundtracks, etc.

On the flip side, while PS3 hasn't announced much, Sony's Phil Harrison did hint that they would not have a central service comparable to Live. In fact, they probably will have a more laissez-faire system:

"We want to provide an open platform wherever possible," he said. "We want to create a platform on which publishers can exploit their services. We are happy for publishers to form their own commercial relationships directly with the consumer."

My opinion? I love Live and I think the central, consistent interface will help casual gamers. Sony is making a mistake by leaving up to developers. The player will get very uneven experiences as developers begin to skimp on "standard" features.

On the flip side, as a developer, I am worried that Microsoft will go overboard with their requirements and soak the precious few development resources I have, leaving very little left for gameplay innovation.

I've Spent Lots of Money on Halo

2005-08-25T12:48:00.000-04:00

I've got some more substantive posts brewing, but in the meantime, here's a link to an interesting story over at GameDaily breaking down the money-making powerhouse that is the Halo franchise. Reading this, I realize that I've spent a crapload of money on Halo products. I have both Halo and Halo 2, all the map packs, the Official Halo 2 Guide, and a Halo Live headset. That's a lot considering that I'm only a casual player.

My big question is this: Can a game designer do anything to try to design this sort of fanatic product loyalty into the game itself (beyond just making a great product)? Is there anything about the game design of Halo 2 that lead to this or is it all due to good marketing for a solid product?

Curveball Design

2005-07-28T00:23:00.000-04:00

Over at Zen of Design, Damion Schubert muses about all the bad endings in games. Of course, as a designer, he focuses on the badly designed endings (as opposed to poorly written endings to the stories). When you think about it, it does seem like an awful lot of great games end with curveball design elements.

The jumping puzzle at the end of Half-Life
The jumping puzzle at the end of God of War
The jumping puzzle at the end of Psychonauts
The jumping puzzle at... wait a minute...

Ok... so maybe we should just expect a jumping puzzle at the end of every game. Seriously though, the thing that's so jarring about these jumping puzzles is that they come at the end of games that aren't about jumping (except maybe Psychonauts, but I hear that that puzzle is insanely hard compared to the rest of the game). I can imagine that these design choices are made to provide challenge and perhaps urgency to the end of the game, but having to adjust to a new mode of play can kill any momentum that the player has going, which can destroy immersion and cause frustration.

Schubert suggests that twists in the design might be more elegant. Adding a new layer or wrinkle to existing mechanics would challenge the player without breaking immersion or causing unnecessary frustration. Since the player has spent the entire game learning and mastering a set of mechanics, it makes sense to maintain that learning curve (or even reward it) with additional variations rather than completely new challenges. You don't want to make the player feel like a beginner after they've played your game for 12 hours.

That said, is there any time when a complete curveball game mechanic actually works near the end of a game? Any examples (I haven't come up with one yet)?

Things to Do Better

2005-07-12T18:37:00.000-04:00

Idle Thumbs has a provocative piece on attracting the female demographic to games. I can't say I like the overall tone, but one thing I noticed is that every item the author mentioned is something I would like to see in games myself (not being female). Here's the list:

Fashionable hardware
Shorter games
More transparency
Multiplayer, but not cutthroat
Originality
More diverse settings
Better characters
Art, not graphics

One particular point got my attention. Under "Shorter games," the author notes that "most games now reward you for completion." The whole game experience is geared toward finishing something (a fight, a quest, a level, the whole game). "The reward should be in the gameplay itself, every moment enjoyable." This got me thinking about what games put less focus on completion and more focus on the experience of play. So far, I've got The Sims, and maybe some MMOGs (when played a certain way). Any others?

And is a game that focuses on play rather than completion still a game?

Killer 7: Art?

2005-07-12T10:41:00.000-04:00

Over at Penny-Arcade, Tycho muses about Art in the context of Capcom's Killer 7:

I think it's rare that we as players truly think about what it would mean for a game to be "art," straight up, with no qualifications. I'm not even sure the two terms can abide without rancor in the same sentence. Games are products, we buy them, and like other things we buy we have a reasonable expectation that it will produce a certain quantity of "amusement" before we have exhausted its supply. This definition is not sufficient to describe art. Art can be illegible. It can be exhausting. It can be maddening, offensive, and revelatory. Sometimes, it is literally Our Savior in a jar of pee. There is certainly no guarantee that you may be amused consistently, we take it for granted when we play a game that such was their intention, even if they have failed in it. Art can and will elude you. I'm fairly certain these themes are incompatible with the entire anatomy of consumerism.

It's worth reading the rest of his post. The tricky part here is that Art usually results in a transformative experience, especially if it's difficult/exhausting/maddening/etc. When a game is difficult/exhausting/maddening/etc, it just sucks. Unless...

Tycho holds up Killer 7 as something that isn't a good game but just might be Art. I haven't played it, but I'm rather intrigued now. Anyone have any thoughts?

London

2005-07-08T15:37:00.000-04:00

Our best wishes for recovery and healing go out to the people of London. Dave McCarthy, former writer for Edge Magazine, shares his account of the harrowing experience of the Tube yesterday morning. A snippet:

"I found it oddly poignant that I discovered my GBA was still turned on at 2:30 in the afternoon."

Episodes

2005-07-08T15:25:00.000-04:00

And so it begins... It seems that Ritual Entertainment will be releasing its next SiN game in episode form over Valve's Steam content delivery network. Salient features:

6 hour episodes
$20 a pop
Released every 3 to 4 months

Interesting. This seems a bit expensive to me, although on second thought, I realize I happily pay $50 for a 12-15 hour game like Prince of Persia. Maybe $20 for 6 hours isn't bad. 3 to 4 months also seems like a long stretch between episodes. Will that be too long to maintain interest in storylines? If the game is good and the episodes each offer something new (gameplay- or story-wise), then I think it might work.

Also of note, Ritual will be developing SiN Episodes on Valve's Source engine. Could this be a small step in the direction of standardized tools? If this works, it could be a good demonstration of the benefits of reusing tools (rather than reinventing the wheel each time around). I'll be watching this closely as it develops.

In other downloadable content news, the new Halo 2 maps are pretty sweet. I haven't played them with other people yet, but even just exploring them by myself was entertaining.

The HD Era: Not Entirely Bogus?

2005-06-14T17:58:00.000-04:00

When J Allard gave the Microsoft keynote at GDC this year, he spoke about the HD Era, which is basically Microsoft's strategy for the next generation consoles. Though he defined "HD" as covering more than just the "better" visuals of HDTV, the hi-def future certainly seemed to start with more resolution, greater color range, and the ever-popular widescreen. Microsoft put its money where its mouth is and gave away 1,000 Samsung HDTVs at the end of the talk, which, in my mind, was probably a worthwhile endeavor.

You see, I happened to win one of those TVs. I wouldn't bring it up except that, as a PR move, it seems to have worked. I've finally got my TV set up with PS2 and Xbox running through component cables, and all my audio is piped by fiber optic to my 5.1 surround system. I'm not an A/V nut by any stretch of the imagination, so experiencing this sort of rig is pretty cool for me.

The thing is, I probably would have been one of the last people to get an HDTV. I'm one of the naysayers who always figured that the difference couldn't be that big a deal. How much better could HD look over a regular TV? And given the durability of old school TVs, I wouldn't have had to replace mine for a good long time. In essense, I'm exactly the kind of person that Microsoft is trying to convince.

And, to be honest, I'm pretty impressed. Playing God of War in progressive scan widescreen on a big, bright LCD tv is pretty cool.

However, there are problems with the HD Era strategy. The main one being that in some ways HDTV is a fairly important evolutionary step for the medium of video. It's all still video, but as Clive Thompson points out, hi-def gives us a lot more detail, so much so that some live action stars actually look worse as a result. "Watching a show in high definition is thus rather like being Gulliver in the land of Brobdingnag -- where every pore on the giants' faces looms like a shell-blasted crater."

What does that mean for videogames? Well, as many have pointed out, art assets are going to have to be much more hi-fidelity. I tried playing Halo 2 on the new HDTV, and although it was much crisper, it also looked a lot chunkier. All the imperfections that were hidden on a low-def TV became much more evident. More detailed art not only means more work (and more money) but also pushes game visuals farther into Uncanny Valley territory. The animation will need to be much more naturalistic, and behavior will have to have a certain level of plausibility to match.

Playing Breakdown last night, I was struck by the inability of my NPC partner to maintain eye contact. She would deliver a line, stop, turn to face me, and then deliver another line. Often she looked like she was looking over my shoulder or away to one side. Sometimes this was ok; she looked like she was gazing off in thought. Other times it was irritatingly distracting, as it was obvious she was supposed to be looking me in the eye. These sorts of situations will be even more evident in next-gen games, as the characters look more and more real.

Jurie over at Intelligent Artifice thinks that this "will be the first generation shift where the diminishing returns [of better graphics] should become pretty obvious to everyone." The shift to 3D was a huge jump, but the shift to hi-def won't have the same impact, especially in terms of gameplay. I'm hoping that the better visual quality will force developers to confront issues of behavior. Work in animation and AI could certainly have a huge effect on gameplay. So perhaps HDTV could have an indirect impact on game design.

So what about the HD Era? I don't think it's all it's cracked up to be, but I also don't think it's completely without merit. The pressures that HD will put on developers will be enormous, but at the same time, develops who rise to the challenge may innovate in unexpected ways. HD may turn out to be a revolution, but if it does, it will probably be a different kind of revolution that most people expected. We'll just have to see.

Photojournalism: The Game

2005-06-08T13:49:00.000-04:00

I just started playing Beyond Good & Evil, Ubisoft's cult favorite from 2003. So far, I have to say I'm impressed. It's a great example of how games can start to focus on mechanics that don't center around combat. Sure, BG&E has fighting (simple stick-beating-type fighting), but most missions seem to revolve around taking pictures. In a lot of ways, the photography interface is like a first person shooter; you point and shoot. On the other hand, the power of the mental shift from firing a gun to snapping a photo is such that it feels like a totally new and fresh mechanic.

One ongoing way of earning money in the game is to take pictures of local flora and fauna for a scientific archive. I've found that even as I approach a battle, I try to take pictures of the creatures I'm about to fight, some small part of me hoping that I can preserve them even as I destroy them. That's a pretty impressive achievement in terms of complex emotional reaction to the game. I find it extremely hopeful for games in general that such a simple re-imagnining of a standard game mechanic can make such a huge difference in the emotional impact of the game.

BG&E doesn't just stop there, either. With a (sometimes heavy-handed) story centered around government corruption, issues like freedom of the press and the importance of free information are tackled as the main themes of the game. This is a game that is about revolution through photojournalism, and even though it's set in a science fiction world, this theme seems far more culturally relevant to today's world than most shooters, even those set in historical periods. In a world where a government tries to keep photos of dead soldiers or snapshots of prison abuses under wraps, a game about exposing the truth through pictures hits close to home.

And in addition, we get a new kind of action hero, the journalist.

Thats Not How It Happened

2005-05-24T03:42:00.000-04:00

After watching Revenge of the Sith twice opening day (it was an accident, I swear), I've decided something. Thats not how it happened. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, it was an interesting idea, but I must say you are wrong. Darth Vader's origin story is so much cooler than that.

In my head is where the real story exists. In my head there is no Jar Jar, no Meticlorians, no Virgin birth, no Count Dooku, no Droid Army, no Galactic Senate meetings broadcast via Republic C-Span. I'll let you in on how it really happened:

Episode I: The Buddy Flick... Obi Wan is a reckless but faithful Jedi. He is sent on a mission and needs a pilot, so he is assigned a 20-year-old Anakin. The rest of the movie is them becoming best friends while saving the galaxy. Skywalker shows promise. The movie ends with Obi wan deciding to secretly train him.

Episode II: The Training Flick... Anakin learns the force, starts to let it go to his head, falls in love with Padme, becomes a badass Jedi.

Episode III: The Love Triangle... Padme is pushed away by Anakin's lust for power. She is comforted by Obi-Wan. Skywalker gets jealous. Some other shit happens and *bam* Darth Vader.

Thats I've got swimming around in my head. What did you expect? Fan Fiction? No, my point is that when something is a important to you as Star Wars was to me growing up, you dont have to settle for someone elses vision. You can make up your own. So, there you have it, the real Vader prequels. Or as real as they are in my head.

Vacation and 13 Questions

2005-05-22T00:38:00.000-04:00

I'm going on vacation for a bit, and I'm taking with me the very interesting book Difficult Questions About Videogames. The basic premise of the book is that 13 very basic questions about videogames were sent out to a group of interested parties (developers, academics, players, etc). The answers were then compiled and published. It's a very immediate accounting of this specific moment in the development of videogame culture.

Of course, as I read, I'm coming up with my own answers to the questions, which I'll post here when I return home. You can download a list of the questions in PDF format here.

Also, you can now get the book for free (except for shipping).

Transmedia World: Republic Commando

2005-05-21T23:49:00.000-04:00

Last night, I saw Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith, which I will refrain from commenting on directly, other than to say that I enjoyed it for the most part. One of the things that added to my enjoyment of the movie was the use of other media to fill in the story between Episode II and Episode III. For instance, the Clone Wars cartoon, directed by Genndy Tartakovsky of Samurai Jack and Dexter's Lab fame. I didn't see them all, but I liked what I saw, and little details like Anakin's rise to Jedi Knighthood and the kidnapping of Chancellor Palpatine by General Grievous were nice to know going into Episode III [though I'm sure the movie would have held up ok even if I hadn't seen the cartoons]. Apparently, there were books and comics too.

However, my favorite transmedia use of the franchise is the recent videogame Star Wars: Republic Commando [for more about the idea of transmedia, see Henry Jenkins]. Luckily, I finished RC a few days before Episode III came out. I hadn't planned on timing it like that, but it worked out nicely. This may sound odd, but my favorite thing about RC was that there was very little in the way of climactic encounters. It did a fantastic job of capturing the feel of being part of a military operation, and making me feel like the leader of a squad of clone commandos doing the dirty work of the Republic. My squad and I weren't the heroes of the war; we just killed a lot of Geonosians, droids, and Trandoshans.

Little moments in the game, during play, reinforced this notion of being important but not heroic. For instance, at one point, I looked through a window and had General Grievous in my sights. I fired, but he moved out of the way at just the right moment, and my shot did nothing more than alert his guards to my presence. Even though I know that I couldn't have killed him, I felt very much a part of that larger battle that was later resolved in the movie.

Designing a videogame as part of a transmedia world, seems to me like the "right" way to approach making a movie-based game. LucasArts developed a fun game around an experience that supported but didn't interfere with the movie, and in doing so, created an artifact that contributed to the story. Not only did it contribute to the story, though, it also personalized the experience of the movie for me.

Some of my favorite parts of Episode III were when I recognized something from the game. When a Jedi carved through some super battle droids, I had a greater appreciation for that feat, having faced SBDs with delta squad. When General Grievous appeared, I thought of that time when I had him in my sights. When Tarful, the Wookiee leader, said goodbye to Yoda on Kashyyyk, I smiled to myself, knowing that I had liberated Tarful from Trandoshan slavers earlier.

I wasn't the hero of the story, but part of the Star Wars story had become my own.

Living Worlds: The Power of Surprise

2005-05-19T16:31:00.000-04:00

The so-called "living world" games seem to me like the next big design challenge for videogames. When I say "living world," I'm referring to games that take place within a simulated world, one that seems to live and breathe with or without the interaction of the player. The recent games in the Grand Theft Auto series (3, Vice City, and San Andreas) are perhaps the most popular examples.

The problem with living world games is the difficulty of designing entertaining experiences within the unpredicability of these (often) emergent systems. For instance, despite the fun of playing in the sandbox of San Andreas, I often find myself aimlessly wandering around, lost or unsure of exactly what to do. Especially with the advent of next-gen consoles (I started writing this post pre-Xbox 360/PS3/Revolution), this kind of game is going to become more and more prevalent as the hardware begins to support it more readily. The challenge is to figure out how to design living world games that still deliver quality experiences.

Designers will have to become masters of indirect control. When the player has all the freedom in the world, the most subtle cues will have to be used to guide them from event to event. Designers will also have to engineer systems that are flexible enough to deliver excitement no matter where the player is in the game world. Story games will have to unfold in totally unforeseeable ways, such that they are driven by the player rather than an author. Designers will have to find ways to seed their worlds with opportunities for surprise.

The real strength of a living world is its ability to surprise the player. When an NPC does something unexpected that remains coherent with the world, players will delight. When the player pushes at the world and the world pushes back, the player will be hooked. However, it's not enough to build a simulation. Building emergent systems is necessary but not sufficient. Believable AI is crucial but can not carry entertainment by itself. Living world games are not just simulations. They are also games; games that still have to be designed.

Black & White in Your Pocket

2005-05-10T13:25:00.000-04:00

Say what you will about Peter Molyneux (and we have), but the man does have a knack for coming up with interesting game concepts. The AI-driven Black & White may not have been a perfect game, but it certainly brought out a bunch of new concepts. Well, Black & White is set to make a comeback, and I'm not talking about Black & White 2. Majesco has just announced Black & White Creatures for Nintendo DS and Sony PSP.

This makes so much sense it's not even funny. Imagine Nintendogs with a large, living world (and lots of peasants for the puppies to eat). Think Tamogotchi with followers. Think Monster Rancher "to go." For the DS version, the stylus makes many of the original interface designs feasible in a way that the mouse never did. Gestural input should be much more intuitive. Scratching your creature's belly (or slapping it around) will be a matter of scratching the stylus on the screen. From a design perspective, it seems like a no-brainer. I'm less sure about the PSP version, but hopefully enough of the game will work in that format as well.

Brett's Footnotes

2005-04-27T17:15:00.000-04:00

I recently discovered this interesting blog: Brett's Footnotes. Brett's a developer who worked on Star Wars: Republic Commando (which, BTW, I'm currently enjoying - more on that later). Brett's blog has a specific slant that I find particularly invigorating. He frames his thoughts on game design within discussions of specific works from other media (mainly books and films), much as I have in the past. For instance, he draws a parallel between Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and Final Fantasy IX. Good stuff. Also, since he's a dev, his thoughts are very much grounded in the capabilities of the videogame medium. There's very little media envy.

I found Brett's Footnotes via Jamie Fristrom's excellent GameDevBlog.

New Languages for New Worlds

2005-04-20T15:18:00.000-04:00

The New York Times is running an interesting piece on the fictional language Tho Fan, which was invented for BioWare's epic Jade Empire. Creating completely new languages seems to me like a great way to fill in the cultural details of a virtual world, solidifying the experience for players. Tolkien did it. Star Trek did it.

I haven't played Jade Empire, so I can't really comment on the effectiveness. Has anyone noticed this new language? Does anyone have any insight into whether it helps the game at all?

Finally! Real Downloadable Content

2005-04-19T16:14:00.000-04:00

Bungie just announced that next Monday will be the day they release four new maps for Halo 2 Multiplayer. Two will be free and two will cost money. After a few months, the for-pay maps will become free as well. I love this model and plan to buy them, if for nothing else but to support Bungie. I'm hoping this will go over so well that more studios will consider a TV model for distribution. It will keep games alive, and fresh longer, rather than the easily disposable content we create now.

For info... Bungie.net

Story and Skill

2005-04-18T17:51:00.000-04:00

[Note: I'm going to try to keep this relatively spoiler free, but I will be broadly discussing the last few levels of God of War. You've been warned.]

This weekend I finished God of War. It's a great game, and I highly recommend it (for adults, of course). I'm still amazed at how fresh the whole thing felt. There was never any real repetition of locations; each level offered new and different sights and experiences.

However, there were some interesting design choices in the last few levels that got me thinking about the conflict between story-based play and skill-based play. While I found the combat in God of War to be immensely enjoyable, I have to say that story was the driving factor that kept me playing. I found myself looking forward to each new portion of the adventure, anticipating each new flashback/cutscene. I also derived a lot of enjoyment from the playable story elements, the set pieces and environments.

In light of all that, I find it amusing that, after constant defeat at the hands of Ares in the final showdown, I refused to drop from Normal difficulty to Easy, even when the game prompted me. A little background info [this may contain some minor spoilers]: the final fight with Ares includes three sections. The first two are relatively straightforward and contain some great twists. In the final segment of the fight, pretty much all of the powers that Kratos has developed over the course of the game are taken away. The player is left with no magic, and no blades of chaos. Instead, the player has a single sword and is forced to learn a new style of fighting.

Since much of the fighting style that I had developed over the course of the game relied on magic, this final showdown proved difficult. I played the same segment over and over for hours, literally. I can't remember how many times I told the game that I didn't want to set the difficulty to Easy.

I eventually gave in, and after setting the difficulty to Easy, I finished the game in one go. I don't think that I saw a different ending than anyone who finished the game in Normal mode. In fact, I'm pretty sure that aside from the battle itself there was no difference. If story was my main reason for playing, then why didn't I just downgrade to Easy immediately? I would have gotten to bed earlier, that's for sure.

A similar contradiction in my play style came up in an earlier level. Some devilish plaforming took me longer than it should have because I refused to "just get through it." Instead, I insisted on exploring the entire configuration of platforms, looking for orb chests. My desire to move quickly through the story was temporarily suspended by my need to find all the orbs.

Here's where the design choices of God of War come into conflict. David Jaffe has said multiple times that he wanted the game to be story-driven and cinematic. However, some mechanics seem designed to cater more to standard, skill- and achievement-based play. In videogame tradition, different difficulty levels usually offer different rewards. Thus, by presenting different difficulty levels, God of War implies that finishing it in Easy mode might result in a less satisfying ending. After playing the entire game in Normal mode, I was loathe to finish it in Easy mode and risk missing out on a better (or more complete) ending. Likewise, the leveling up of weapons/magic through the red orbs leads to my obsession with finding all the orb chests in a difficult platforming situation.

Now, I'm not necessarily advocating the elimination of difficulty settings or weapon/magic levels. I just think that marrying classic gameplay with an attempt at greater accessibility is tougher than you might think. God of War did a lot of things to make gameplay more accessible, but it seems to me that it could have gone further.

Or maybe I'm just more obsessive than I need to be (or think I am).

The next part of this train of thought is contemplating ways to overcome the issue of story and skill.

More, More, More...

2005-04-12T15:59:00.000-04:00

The more I think about it, the more I am beginning to think that God of War is fairly significant. I just read this interview over at Ain't It Cool News [link via GGA]. David Jaffe, the creative muscle behind GoW, articulates some pretty interesting things.

To me, the main thing is that he was trying to make a cinematic and casual game in God of War: "This is intentionally supposed to feel more like a movie. We did not want to make a game that was a hardcore game for gamers only. We wanted to make a game that was narrative, that was story-driven. We did things with hidden checkpoints so that if you died, you don’t have to replay very much. It’s really meant to be accessible..."

The great thing is that he didn't have to compromise to acheive the cinematic feel or the accessibility. Playing God of War is intensely enjoyable. The things that make it "cinematic," such as the fixed camera, the story, the epic battles, and the non-repetitive environments, don't get in the way of the "game." In fact, they enhance it.

The things that make the game accessible to non-hardcore gamers are actually common-sense design choices that just haven't been made consciously by many other development teams. Most normal people don't enjoy playing the same 15 minutes of a game over and over, so Jaffe and company sprinkled enough invisible checkpoints throughout the game that dying rarely results in much repetition.

The result of choices such as this is a game that appeals to a larger audience while satisfying a large portion of gamers as well. I think/hope that we will see more such games coming soon.

Also... David Jaffe has a blog.

Misc. Links for Friday

2005-04-08T15:39:00.000-04:00

Here's some links just for you:

Microsoft starts another ilovebees.com-style viral marketing game.
IdleThumbs weighs in on said viral marketing game ("And so Microsoft begins its assault, which, following in the footsteps of their I love Bees campaign, is something that will undoubtedly be... confusing.").
Oddworld strikes out on a new path.
Lara Croft gets a makeover.
Peter Molyneux on Project Dimitri. I'm not going to say anything on this... just yet.

God of More

2005-04-08T15:12:00.000-04:00

The New York Times gets it [includes coverage of the new Splinter Cell, too]. They get bonus points for only using the word "brutal" once.

Another good review that hits some of the finer points is over at Damned Machines.

God of War: End of the Honeymoon

2005-04-07T14:31:00.000-04:00

Now that I've gotten all the requisite cliches out of the way...

ferocious
brutal
ultra-violence
palpable rage
savage disregard for life
joyfully brutal
gleeful decapitations
unrelenting gore
extremely cathartic
and so on

...and gotten a few more hours under my belt, I can say I'm finally through that starry-eyed honeymoon phase with God of War. Don't get me wrong, I still love it and will play it through to the end, but after the umpteenth harpy de-winging, the combat has lost some of its initial "OMFG" factor. I'm no longer impressed when Kratos tears some hapless undead minion in half or shoves flaming blades down a minotaur's throat. The combat's starting to get harder as well. Now, rather than reveling in the chaos of it all, I'm spending more time concentrating on utilizing all of Kratos's powers to get through a fight.

This actually makes me happy. It's indicative of solid gameplay underneath all the bloody trappings. And the really cool thing is that other quality aspects of the game are starting to show through. Many of the puzzles actually continue the violence of combat in sometimes disturbing ways (think human sacrifice). They aren't a breather from the brutality. The story remains intriguing; I still want to learn more about Kratos. The little flashbacks sprinkled throughout the game give just enough information to tantalize my curiosity. The camera still troubles me occasionally, but it also affords some amazing views. In more than one instance, the camera makes the counter-intuitive move of pulling backwards as Kratos moves forwards, emphasizing the vastness of the spaces. All of these things contribute to my sense that God of War is an extremely complete experience. It has clearly been designed well from many perspectives.

So, in short, God of War is still good.

God of War/rior Within

2005-03-31T17:27:00.000-05:00

I'm about 2 hours into God of War (decent, short review over at Wired, another at the Onion), which has successfully drawn my attention away from any other games I may have been playing or thinking of playing. Here's a few initial impressions:

Similarity to Prince of Persia: In some ways, this is the game that Warrior Within should have been. If you're going to go all dark and goth, go all the way. Where PoP:WW let the player chop baddies in half, God of War has the player character ripping enemies in half with his bare hands (not to mention tearing the wings off harpies, and the heads off gorgons). Where PoP:WW has female characters with silly proportions and skimpy outfits, God of War has full-on nudity and a playable sex scene (off-screen, but still...). In terms of theme/style, God of War takes the safe, sanitized, teen-angsty, "generic rage" of PoP:WW and pushes it so far into the ferocious and brutal that it actually becomes interesting. In my opinion, PoP should stick to the fantastic navigation of complex spaces that both The Sands of Time and Warrior Within pulled off so well. Leave the darkness and ultra-violence to those who are willing to go all the way.
Story: Told in classic flashback form, the story starts at the end, leading to a sense of inevitability that plays off the palpable rage and frustration of the main character, Kratos. Kratos himself is an enigma that draws the player in. He's disarmingly simple in his savage disregard for life, but there are hints at a deeper complexity to his character, hints that he has a reason for being this way, which make the player all the more curious to learn his story.
Combat: Joyfully brutal. I can't add much to what's already been said. But it is the core of the game, and it's executed in superb fashion.
Puzzles: So far, the few puzzles I've come across are well integrated into the action, some even involving combat and the use of special powers. Turning an enemy to stone in an opportune place, for instance. Generally, these are not the spacial navigation puzzles of Prince of Persia, but rather they elegantly combine Kratos's combat abilities with environmental elements, leaving the player feeling clever and satisfied without having to change gameplay modes. There's no feeling of "Ok, now I've got to think about this puzzle" or "It's time to switch to the combat mindset."
Camera: Unlike just about every other game of its kind, God of War doesn't give the player any control over the camera. Every once in a while this bothers me, but I think that's just because I haven't internalized the fact that it's essentially unnecessary for the player to look around. Whereas in PoP, I would have looked around with the camera control to find solutions to a puzzle, I've found that movement and exploration in God of War will often acheive the same end.
Violence: And Hillary Clinton's worried about GTA. Clearly, she hasn't witnessed the gleeful decapitations and constant, unrelenting gore of God of War. This game is extremely cathartic in its violent release of pure anger. Whether this is a good thing could be debatable, but I'm certainly enjoying it. It's not for kids, though, in case you haven't figured that out by now.

PS. Did anyone else find it a little disturbing that the same left thumbstick twiddling is used both for popping the heads off gorgons and for pleasuring the two ladies in Kratos's bed on the way to Athens?

Chaotic Theories

2005-03-31T16:01:00.000-05:00

Yeah, yeah, I know. I still have a load of GDC write-ups to do. In the meantime, here's an interesting anecdotal review of the new Splinter Cell over at Joystiq. Apparently, the author's experience started out pretty rocky, as detailed in the first entry. However, things seem to be getting better. It's quotes like this that make me want to play this game:

"We took a few dry runs (no mercs) in Story Mode as spies, setting the time limit to infinite. Yeah, we looked like a couple of blind mice at first, but we were also kids again, exploring the woods behind his house. There’s something deeply satisfying about running through a spooky, abandoned orphanage, albeit virtual, with a life-long friend—knowing that in reality we are separated by over 100 miles."

I can't wait.

GDC 2005: Brian Allgeier and the Attack of the Design Directors

2005-03-31T14:11:00.000-05:00

So here is my last GDC Summary! Woo-hoo, I'm finally gone through all my notes. I know CJ still has some more to go through, but for now I will revel in my completeness.

Attack of the Design Directors
Brian Allgeier

Brian detailed his job as Design Director at Insomniac Games and how that company realized they needed someone to lead the design team without being a strictly-defined manager. He presented an interesting analogy, using the A-Team as an example of the qualities a design team needs. Each team needs:

Hannibal – The Planner - Someone who keeps the big picture in mind, is the organizer and keeps his eye on the core gameplay
Face - The Promoter – Someone who can speak the language of the other disciplines and management and is great at pitching ideas.
Mr T - The Mechanic – Someone who keeps the technical in mind and makes sure that ideas can be implemented.
Murdock – The Creative/Crazy One – Someone who thinks outside the box, can visualize an idea and tends to innovate.

If team has all those qualities, then the Director must always be weighing each of these aspects of a design and keep them in balance. How does he do this? Communication was the obvious answer, but he realized you have to structure this and build it into the schedule.

The key point was that a design lead has to empower his designers to review and critique each others work. He believes by making them get up and go over each others work, it elevates everything. So a lot of his job is making sure the team’s feedback loops are tight and that the weekly reviews get done.

Bungie: Harbingers of Episodic Content?

2005-03-29T14:02:00.000-05:00

If you are a fan of Halo 2 and haven't seen this yet, go check it out now.

Bungie has officially announced that they'll be releasing 9 new multiplayer maps for Halo 2, some for free, some for sale (though all will be free by the end of the summer). They will be released for download over Xbox Live and also on store shelves as a $19.99 disc.

First off, I have to say that it's really cool to see a prominent developer trying out this sort of business model. Others have certainly dabbled in post release, "premium" content, but to see Bungie/Microsoft pursuing it to this degree gives me hope for the future of game distribution. Although 9 new maps could hardly be called "episodic content," this model could be seen as the first step towards a distribution system that sits somewhere between retail-only releases and constantly updated MMOGs.

I can envision a day (very soon) when a player will buy a $19.99 retail box that includes the game engine and base-level assets, along with, say, the first 5 episodes of the game story. Each episode would be a self-contained set of levels. Episodes would be tied together with an overarching theme or story. After release, the developer would release new episodes for purchase (download or at retail) on a regular schedule, once-a-month, for instance. Episodes could cost $5 or less. With this model, developers and publishers would have a chance at making more than the standard $50 on a single game, and by using the same engine for what could be more than a single game's worth of content, the developer stretches technology farther.

From there, it's not to hard to imagine games that have no retail releases, just online, downloadable episodes. But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself.

These are not new ideas.

Graphics vs. Art Direction

2005-03-24T11:10:00.000-05:00

The other day, I posted a link to this Grumpy Gamer post about the graphics for the new Zelda game. Joystiq now has an equally grumpy rebuttal. Generally, I agree with the Grumpy Gamer position that the quest for more realistic graphics tends to lead people away from more interesting art styles. However, having seen the new Legend of Zelda trailer, I have to say that my problem is less with the realistic graphic and more with the inconsistent art direction... which brings me to my point. I think that we're basically at a point now where advances in graphics will be pointless without good art direction.

With advanced engines, such as the Source engine, the Doom 3 engine, or Unreal 3.0, readily available to developers, art direction is going to be the difference between one pixel-shaded, normal-mapped world and another built on the same technology. To me, art direction is the [graphical] difference between Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. Though HL2 has what most people would call "realistic" graphics, there is a very subtle and very powerful direction to the art that reinforces all of the other elements of the game.

Have to get back to work now... Perhaps I'll update this post later with a more complete breakdown of art direction in the new Zelda trailer.

GDC 2005: Nicole Lazzaro and Why We Play Games Together

2005-03-23T13:41:00.000-05:00

I'm about 2/3s of the way through my GDC notes. I'm hoping I can finish my debriefing sometime in the next week, so we can get to other topics, such as how great Resident Evil 4 is, and if God of War is going to come out of nowhere and redefine the action genre. Until then, here is another GDC Update:

Why we play games together
Nicole Lazzaro

Nicole’s session focused on her work at XeoDesign, doing games usability and research testing. Specifically she got into one of the four reasons why people play games: The People Factor. The other three, Hard Fun, Easy Fun and Altered States are explained in her white paper . The essential part of her thesis is that people are addictive, not the game. Games make being with people more fun as much as people make playing games more fun.

For most of her lecture she showed video clips of her subjects playing games together in their own homes, at their own desks or on their own couches. The information gained just from the video clips was so worth it. It really reinforced how important doing focus testing and play testing is to a game’s iterative process. I hope we can eventually start doing more rigorous testing like this at my studio.

The other takeaway was her list of emotions that people go through while playing games together.

Fear
Threat of harm, object moving quickly to hit player, fall or loss of support, possibility of pain
Surprise
Sudden change
Briefest of all emotions, does not feel good or bad, interpreting event this emotion merges into fear
Disgust
Rejection as food or outside norms
The strongest triggers are body products such vomit, urine, mucus, saliva, and blood.
Naches/ Kvell (Yiddish)
Pleasure or pride at the accomplishment of a child mentee. (Kvell is how it feels to express this pride child or mentee to others.)
Fiero (Italian)
Personal triumph over adversity. The ultimate Game Emotion
Overcoming difficult obstacles players raise their their heads. They do not need to experience anger success, but it does require effort.
Schadenfreude (German)
Gloat over misfortune of a rival
Competitive players enjoy beating each other especially long-term rival. Boasts are made about player prowess ranking.
Wonder
Over whelming improbability. Curious items amaze at their unusualness, unlikelyhood, and improbability without breaking out of realm of possibilities.

March 22 Links

2005-03-22T13:26:00.000-05:00

Life is a bit crazy, between recovering from back-to-back conferences and getting ready for one more trip this weekend. While I'm collecting myself in preparation for the next glut of GDC-related posts, here's some linkage, pre-digested.

Wanda and the Colossus is now called Shadow of the Colossus. See kikizo.com for new screenshots, video, and an interview with Kenji Kaido.
I think I might have to pick up God of War.
I can't decide between the Nintendo DS and the PSP.
Here's a free game that's fun: N.
Alex at Damned Machines has written a sweet poem about the Game Design Challenge.
[via Kotaku] This video is actually a public service announcement about teenage motherhood, but whoever made it captured the feeling of a game perfectly.
Grumpy Gamer weighs in on the new look for Zelda.

Digested Links for March 18th

2005-03-18T16:09:00.000-05:00

A long response to GDC's Game Developer's Rant is posted over at TerraNova.
Penny Arcade launches a "friendly zinger" at Bungie after losing to them (badly) in a Halo 2 match.
Sean Connery to appear in the next Bond game.
News Flash: March continues the glut of high-quality games. How am I going to get anything done?

Understanding Entertainment

2005-03-17T23:12:00.000-05:00

Deca has alluded to Jesse Schell's ideas about gameplay and story. Now, thanks to the kindness of Prof. Schell, we can offer this link to the actual article. This is really good stuff. Enjoy!

Understanding Entertainment [PDF]

GDC 2005: Clint Hocking on Narrative

2005-03-16T13:36:00.000-05:00

Here is another in our series of GDC session summaries.

Deconstructing Sam: Narrative in Splinter Cell
Clint Hocking

Clint’s talk was a great overview of how he sees storytelling in games. He broke things down using a lot of analysis that I have heard before, but the difference here is that he has put much of Marc LeBlanc and Jesse Schell’s theory into practice in Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory. It will be very hard to summarize his entire talk so I’m going to concentrate on the part where he discusses his variant of Schell’s Theory that Story and Gameplay are the same thing. Clint explained that games have four types of narrative: Emergent, Embedded, Strong Procedural and Weak Procedural.

Emergent narrative comes from the difference in what a player tells himself will happen and what actually happens. For example, a player observes an NPC’s behavior and creates an expectation of what will happen when he attempts to subdue that NPC. But if what actually happens is different in someway (that isn’t perceived as cheating) then the player’s experience will be richer.

Embedded narrative is anything that is authored. This is anything written, modeled, scripted or hard-coded. His example was blood on the walls in Doom 3. He also described how in SC:CT they worked from the assumption that the ‘who’ or ‘what’ of a scenario was not that important, but concentrated on the ‘how’ and ‘why.’

The two kinds of procedural narrative are closely related. Weak procedural is when a game system generates changes to the flow of the game in the micro, in order to increase dramatic tension. This can be as simple as spawning a few extra guys if the player is cruising through a level. Strong procedural is when game systems generate responses to possible player actions in order to change the narrative, by adding complications and strengthening the rising action

This is a small slice of his whole talk, but I thought the definitions and examples he uses were worth relaying.

Linkage for March 16th

2005-03-16T13:27:00.000-05:00

Gamespy has a great summary of Will Wright's talk about Spore last week. I was at the session and it was incredible. Rather than go into too much into detail, I'm posting this link.
Not that these link digests have to focus on a single game, but there's some [illicit] screenshots of Spore over at the Ludologist.

GDC 2005: Why Aren't We Doing Interactive Stories?

2005-03-15T00:15:00.000-05:00

Why isn’t the Industry making interactive stories?
Panel With Michael Mateas, Tim Schafer, Warren Spector and Neil Young

This panel wasn’t nearly as incendiary as a few of the other panels through the week. Overall it lacked cohesiveness and didn’t really get at a solution to the problem. There were, however a few interesting gems hidden throughout.

Warren pointed that games have yet to resolve the deep conflict between a game’s need for a victory condition and a story’s need for an emotional or compelling narrative end. The only stories where these two come together are the typical game fantasy stories that we have always done. I thought this was a interesting way of stating why you don’t see many romantic comedies or deep tragedies in games.

Tim mentioned that one approach is not to try to force the game to follow a big story, but to take that big story, shatter it, then shove the pieces into the gameplay where it will fit.

He also said that you can't expect game publishers to take the risk of interactive narrative. It isn’t there job, it is his. The difference is that he doesn’t have to tell them about it. The panel seemed to agree that at big companies, the Trojan horse method is the best for innovation.

GDC 2005: Raph Koster's Game Notations

2005-03-15T00:04:00.000-05:00

A Grammer of Gameplay
Game Atoms: Can Games be diagrammed?
Raph Koster

Raph’s talk center around the goal of creating a way to diagram or notate gameplay the way that music or choreography can be notated. While he failed to convince me this was possible and his end result was not satisfying, his process did answer a lot of open questions. He even admitted that he had not succeeded, but was happy with some of the definitions he managed to create as a result.

He started by defining the problem through comparison. It took dance centuries to find a way to write out choreography, poetry has intensely formal rules, and musical notation can actually reproduce the experience of listening to music, even if it can’t reproduce the playing of skilled musicians.

He got very detailed as he tried to define what a basic element of the notation, a game atom, would be. A few more scattered points he made along the way:

In-game physical space and Game design territory are different things
He uses the example of checkers. It looks like an 8x8 grid of squares, but really it is played on a diagonal set of nodes
All games have sequences of nested and looping events. The more nesting elements the have, the deeper a game is.
Most games have parallel paths of nested events. The more paths they have, the broader a game is.
The most basic element must involve skill, which he defines as having risk. Any element with no risk is not a gameplay atom. He marked these in his notations with red squares. If a chart has more than one of these in a row, he equated it to boring gameplay.

There was a lot more there, but it was a pretty dense talk, I’ll look for his slides and see if they are online.

GDC 2005: Peter Molyneux's Personal Demo

2005-03-14T19:46:00.000-05:00

I also got to attend GDC, although only about 1/3 as much as ClubberJack. I'm going to start putting my notes up throughout the week. So here is the first one:

Gameplay in the 21st Century
Peter Molyneux

Molyneux’s talk was very reminiscent of every all his previous talks. He spent his first 10 minutes talking about what he had done to that point, then his next 10 minutes apologizing for how his last game did not meet up to the colossal hype he built up, then the rest of the speech creating even more colossal hype for his next game. I’ve seen three speeches by him, all three have followed this exact same pattern.

In between all the hype he did mention his theory for what next-gen games need to be. They are not all that different from other ideas I’ve heard, but here there are: 1. Clear concepts, 2. Morphable gameplay, 3. Simpler but deeper, 4. Play not learning. Of these I thought the ideas of simplicity are noble, but may not be easily done given commercial pressures. I disagree with his last point, if you interpret this as meaning players don’t want to learn, they just want to play. I prefer the other view that play is in fact the same as learning. The reason we don’t like the term “learning”, is that we associate it with forced learning, like school, not voluntary learning like hobbies. Thus, if the player perceives that they have to learn something, then the something is not fun in itself. Thus, I think is emphasis on getting rid of learning is misguided.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - Design-O-Rama

2005-03-14T19:13:00.000-05:00

Design-O-Rama
Hosted by Ben Sawyer

In this session, designers presented their solutions to some serious game design challenges which had been posed to them earlier in the week. Unfortunately, I didn't catch the whole session, so I won't dwell on this too much. Supposedly, these designs will make their way onto the Serious Games wiki, but that hasn't happened yet. Here's a quick rundown of the parts that I saw:

America's Army for Teaching - The client wanted a tool to recruit potential teachers and give them some idea of what a career in teaching would be like. The solution was a community-based, puzzle MMO (think Puzzle Pirates) for teachers and pre-teachers.

3rd World Microfinancing Advocacy - The client needed a tool to introduce 3rd world microfinance administrators to the challenges and benefits of picking the right people for their loans. The solution was called something like "Sim Village" and modelled the effects (and ripples) caused by giving microfinancing loans to certain families.

Terrorist Trainer - The client wanted a training program that would train military types in terrorist tactics. The idea was that by teaching our military to think like terrorists, we'd be better able to combat them. The solution was a three-tiered design that involved both FPS and RTS gameplay at different levels. Honestly, I thought the problem was more interesting that the proposed solution.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - Playing Games with Jim

2005-03-14T19:12:00.000-05:00

Playing Games with Jim: Demonstrating the Important Learning Found in COTS Games
James Paul Gee

James Paul Gee, author of a great book about games and learning, did something I have yet to really see in a videogame talk. His only visual aid for the entire talk was live gameplay. He showed Ninja Gaiden and Animal Crossing, though he had wanted to play Full Spectrum Warrior as well. Just as in his book, Gee's point was that COTS games (that's Commercial, Off-The-Shelf games... it took me a while to figure that out) already embody solid learning principles.

Ninja Gaiden, according to Gee, is a game of mastery and therefore a game of learning. It starts off by establishing a strong identity for the learner: You are a ninja (plus some backstory). Gee argues that taking on an identity is important for good learning. You should think of yourself as a scientist when you learn science. As you learn skills, you learn to see the world through the eyes of your assumed identity. You see the world in terms of opportunities to use those skills. So Ninja Gaiden gets off to a good start (as does Animal Crossing). Gee pointed out that exploration is always rewarded in Ninja Gaiden; no matter what you do, you'll probably find something, either an ability, an item, or a pathway. Verbal information (ie tutorial tips) show up "just-in-time." Rather than reading a book on playing Ninja Gaiden, you just play, and you get important info just before you need to apply it.

Some people call Ninja Gaiden hard, even punishing, but Gee frames the difficulty this way: failure leads to practice and eventually to success. The level design, however, constantly challenges the player to be flexible. Once a set of skills has been learned, a powerful wall attack, for example, the level takes it away, giving you a battle with no walls, for instance. The boss at the end of the first level forces the player to begin thinking consciously of their skills as elements of strategy, adding a further level of complexity to grasp. Gee cites games as engaging the player in "performance before competence" learning. The player is thrown immediately into play and eventually "gets it." Schools, on the other hand, engage students in "competence before performance" learning, where students are expected to learn material before they are allowed to apply that learning. Naturally, Gee sees the later method as counter-intuitive.

I totally buy into Gee's ideas. Games are super good at teaching players the skills they need to excel at the game, and these techniques ought to make brilliant learning techniques for real education. My main issue with Gee's thesis is that there's no way any of it will make it into schools anytime soon. With standards-based teaching, is there room for game-based (or game-modelled) learning? Perhaps these are techniques that should be used in designing educational games, intended for after-school audiences.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - 500 Serious Games!

2005-03-14T19:11:00.000-05:00

500 (Serious) Games Later: Best Takeaways
Marc Prensky

With years of experience in the serious games space, Marc Prensky gave a great overview of where serious games are today and how they got there, extracting ten lessons to keep in mind as we move forward. While all of the lessons were important, I found a few to be particularly interesting. The idea of complexity came up more than once. Prensky was arguing that games are good at complexity and should embrace it. The power of games as learning tools comes from their ability to model complex systems. Designers shouldn't over-complicate their games (and especially not their interfaces), but complexity shouldn't be eschewed in favor of dumbing down difficult concepts either.

In discussing new ideas to pursue, Marc mentioned the idea of immediacy, citing games such as 9/11 Survivor, Madrid, September 12, and Kuma War. Though there has been mixed reactions to these games, Prensky sees the immediacy of these games as something we'll see more and more of in the coming days. As people begin to get used to games as a medium for expression, they will be come more natural as a way to react to events as they unfold in the world.

Other new ideas and nuggets cited by Prensky include parody & satire, shock as motivation, character development, and unexpected topics. He even mentioned a project that has NASA working with Nintendo to add real-world viruses to the roster of pocket monsters in Pokemon. In another example, an FBI training game tracks the player's play style and then adjusts future situations to force the player into playing against their preferred style.

One final thought from Prensky's talk that I agreed with was the idea that designers of serious games should consider the entire system in which the game exists. Is the controller appropriate for the experience? What sort of chair will the player be sitting in (especially important if the designer can control this)? What greater environment will the player be situated in? Marc had many other great points, so if anyone finds a copy of his slides... post a link.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - MMOG Econ 101

2005-03-14T19:10:00.000-05:00

Online Worlds and Serious Gaming
Edward Castronova

Ted Castronova's background is in economics. His passion is clearly the economics of virtual worlds (ie, MMOGs and related things). Anyone interested in this sort of thing should check out TerraNova and Ted's papers on SSRN. In his talk, Ted hit the high points from his experience as a virtual world economist. For instance, by his latest calculations, one gold piece from World of Warcraft is worth $0.40 USD. Perhaps the most interesting idea centered around the notion that there is very little difference between the virtual and the real, at least in terms of economics. According to Castronova, only about ten percent of real-life economics can't be "ported" to virtual economy, and that ten percent mostly consists of eating and sleeping.

Having said that, Ted went on to discuss the potential positive and negative impacts of mixing real world and virtual economies. He pointed out that there are important social justice issues involved in the visual anonymity of virtual worlds. People with real-world disabilities or non-standard bodies have a chance to start over with any body they want in a virtual world. Castronova worried that too much real-world involvement in virtual worlds might lead to a diminished ability to escape in this fashion. He suggested keeping some worlds closed to outside economies while opening up others, thus maintaining a safe refuge while allowing experimentation. Finally, Ted posed the idea that virtual worlds might act as a mirror for the real world, leading to positive change in real-life.

GDC 2005: Dear Friends

2005-03-14T19:09:00.000-05:00

Dear Friends: Music of Final Fantasy
Nobu Uematsu, Composer

I have to say that the Final Fantasy games have never really grabbed me. They are beautiful, for sure, but the gameplay (and lack thereof during the frequent cutscenes) never really appealed to me. With that in mind, I pretty much planned to skip this live, symphonic concert of music from the Final Fantasy games. Fortunately for me, I read this short review of the Chicago concert and decided that I shouldn't miss such a culturally important event.

It was beautiful. The music was excellent, and the presentation was generally solid, with the exception of the non-gamer "MC," who clearly didn't fully appreciate what she was involved in. Uematsu's appearance toward the end was lovely. He seemed genuinely grateful for the enthusiasm of the crowd. This was an incredible experience, and I recommend it to anyone who has the opportunity to see it.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - A Force More Powerful

2005-03-14T19:08:00.000-05:00

Case Study: A Force More Powerful
Doug Whatley

Breakaway Games was contracted by a non-profit to build a game that will be used to teach non-violent overthrow of dictatorships. With this very real, very important application, A Force More Powerful strikes me as perhaps the most ambitious application of game design and technology that I have seen. The presentation left something to be desired, as it was difficult to get a handle on what they had built. Such a complex system takes some time to fully grasp. Fortunately, I got a chance to hang out with one of the designers, who gave me a more in-depth tour of the current build.

It's essentially a turn-based strategy game in which only non-violent tactics are supported (though violent outcomes are common if the player doesn't prepare well enough). Underlying the game is a powerful simulation, modelling an economy, the media, religion, a political system, and so on. A scenario editor will allow trainers to customize situations to match real-world places and events. The point is to educate strategic planners about the planning and groundwork that must be laid before any kind of non-violent overthrow can happen. To ensure realism, Breakaway has involved people from Serbia and other areas, who have been involved in actual coups. I can't wait to see what happens with this.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - Political/Activist Games

2005-03-14T19:07:00.000-05:00

Political/Activist Games
Moderated by Ian Bogost

Another roundtable, this session turned towards questions of politics and activism in games and game design. My favorite part of the discussion centered on the idea of trojan-horsing political statements within commercial, entertainment games, rather than trying to make and sell overtly political games as activist statements in and of themselves. Oddworld was cited as a franchise that accomplishes this, conveying environmentalist views in the context of a popular entertainment experience. More compelling food for thought.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - The Public-at-Large?

2005-03-14T19:06:00.000-05:00

How Games Benefit the Public-at-Large?
Moderated by Ben Stokes

This roundtable posed an interesting design question: Can we design a game that benefits the public-at-large, not just one group? The session consisted of brainstorming with other developers and with non-profit representatives to find opportunities for this sort of development. Interesting ideas came up about games to encourage voting, games to help public transportation, games to reduce stress in stressful public spaces, and many others. Certainly, this is a question that I will revisit in my work in the future.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - Games for Change

2005-03-14T19:05:00.000-05:00

Games for Change Lunch

The Games for Change group is a SIG within the Serious Games Initiative that focuses on games used to benefit non-profits. Following the theme of communication and persuasion, this group considers games as tools for effecting positive social change. The conversation wandered around a number of topics, from funding to working with non-profits. The gathering got me thinking about a related concept: Game Developers for Social Responsibility (GDSR). Diverse fields such as medicine and computer science have similar groups. Perhaps it's time for the IGDA to start a SIG or some other type of group with that goal in mind.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - Advergaming

2005-03-14T19:04:00.000-05:00

Case Study: Advergaming for Private and Public Interests
Ian Bogost

Continuing the theme of games as a communicative medium, Bogost gave a great presentation summarizing the current state of advergames (games used to persuade people of something). The second half of his talk tried to tease out what sorts of advertising games are good at. After establishing that games could create a subjective response to a message or product, Bogost claimed that the best advergames actually cause the player to critically engage with the message or product. Therefore, the role of the message/product should be meaningful within the game. The game should embody the experience of the message/product.

Bogost shared an example in which players try to urinate into a toilet while fighting the effects of inebriation. The ad was for a "pacer" drink called J2O meant to hydrate drinkers between pints down at the pub (it's a Brit product). Though advergaming isn't my favorite application of game ideas, I enjoyed thinking of games from this different perspective. Even in an entertainment game, we, as designers, need to consider what messages/products we might, consciously or unconsciously, be selling.

GDC 2005: Serious Games Summit - Raph Koster

2005-03-14T19:03:00.000-05:00

Alright, so we're a little behind. I'd rather be posting interesting, coherent thoughts though, so in this case, late is probably preferable. To start the week, I attended the Serious Games Summit (SGS), a mini-conference set within the larger GDC. The SGS focuses on games and game-related technologies applied to uses other than entertainment. Training, education, and military applications seem to dominate this field for now, but some new interesting applications are emerging as well. Here's a rundown of the SGS sessions I attended:

A Theory of Fun for Games
Raph Koster

Raph Koster kicked off the SGS with an interesting talk, one that boiled down to a summary of his book, A Theory of Fun for Game Design. While he didn't make too much effort to tailor the talk for serious games, his theory hinges on learning as key to fun, so it was pretty appropriate. For me, the highlight was his concluding point: "Games are communicative!" He elaborated, arguing that games are the only medium that allows experiential learning of abstract concepts. For more on Raph's thoughts, I highly recommend his book. Just keep in mind that it's only one theory of fun.

GDC Coverage: Notes on Format

2005-03-14T18:54:00.000-05:00

Ok... so obviously there's a lot of GDC coverage. Here's how it's going to work:

All GDC sessions will get their own posts. We'll both comment on sessions we both attended (noting whose opinions are whose).

So... look for lots of GDC posts in the next few days.

Girls, Girls, Girls: GDC vs. LPSC

2005-03-14T16:12:00.000-05:00

Every month, Wired Magazine prints a calendar listing tech culture relevant events. This month, I've had the good fortune to attend two of those events. Last week, as Laundry Sessions readers know, I was in San Francisco for the Game Developers Conference (GDC) and Serious Games Summit (SGS). This week, I am attending the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (LPSC). Normally, comparing such disparate gatherings would seem silly, but attending them back-to-back (I flew from SF straight to Houston) has thrown them against each other in my mind.

The first and foremost contrast became apparent when I noticed that there are a decent number of women at LPSC. I don't know what the percentages are for either conference, but I would guess ten to fifteen percent at GDC and thirty five to forty percent at LPSC. Planetary science (geology, physics, astrobiology) doesn't strike me as any more or less female-friendly than game development (programming, digital art, design, production). So why aren't there more women in games? Obviously, I don't know the answer to that, but it's nice to be at a scientific conference with a balanced attendance. Hopefully, more folks like Saralah, Jane, the Killer Betties, Sheri Graner-Ray, and others will continue to bolster the ranks of game prodution, design, and consumption.

Artifact Based Narrative

2005-03-14T11:15:00.000-05:00

A co-worker of mine sent a link to this auction for a time machine over on ebay. At first I thought it was simply amusing until I read the details of what exactly came with the auction. This ins't just a tongue-and-cheek rewiring of a toaster, it includes a story of who created the time machine and what happened to the inventor. This is done through the inclusion of old photographs, letters, and other various items that are seemingly related to the time machine.

What the creator of this auction has done is create an entire narrative but rather than tell this story through printed or spoken words or even video, he has done it through artifact. The hunk of metal that was purchased for $647 is not what was was really bought, but the fiction that it reperesents. In this case, the artifacts are the medium.

An interesting side note, the same casino that bought the virgin mary grilled cheese sandwich bought the time machine.

Interesting Links For March 14th

2005-03-14T11:07:00.000-05:00

Last week at the Game Developers Conference, Greg Costikyan gave an interesting rant about the industry. A transcript can be found here. Costikyan also posted the text that he was working from here.
There's some interesting response to the rant over at TerraNova.

Laundry Sessions GDC Coverage!

2005-03-06T14:40:00.000-05:00

Laundry Sessions will be at various portions of the Game Developers Conference this year. Obviously, we won't have "comprehensive" coverage (there's only two of us after all), but we'll try to bring you our patented Laundry Sessions-eye view, with plenty of opinions and probably some bickering... er, informed discussion.

Look for Clubberjack's coverage of the Serious Games Summit, starting Monday.

Nothing to Do with Interactive Entertainment

2005-02-27T01:56:00.000-05:00

Sorry. This could relate to interactive entertainment only in the longest of stretches. But I couldn't contain myself. Deca, didn't you read the book? You should feel free to weigh in on this in a more measured fashion. I just like the art style.

They're making an animated (rotoscoped, by the look of it) film of PKD's A Scanner Darkly.

Design Challenge: What Would a Maoist Videogame Be Like?

2005-02-22T22:06:00.000-05:00

This page of Maoist videogame reviews has been making the rounds on various game-related blogs lately. The thing that interests me the most about these reviews is that they start with the assumption that games convey ideology, something people have argued about endlessly. Traditional game reviews almost always ignore even the possibility of a bias in the game's presentation. For instance, while most reviews of Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic mention the choice the player has between good and evil, the Maoist review takes note of the fact that the game is significantly easier for players who chose evil and skewers the game for teaching the player that "those who have the courage to kill, are strong. Those who don't are weak."

The review continues to examine the lessons that are inherent in KotOR. "In one part of the game, the player fights for money--to the death. This serves well to illustrate the society, where money is everything and human life is worth nothing. The worth of a corpse is solely a function of its persynal properties, which have to be looted to advance in the game." While the paranoia and the talk of "fascist bastards" turns me off, I have to admit that I am happy to find someone examining the ideology of games.

After poking around for a bit, I had to ask the inevitable next question: "What would a good, Maoist (or Marxist, or Communist, or even Socialist) game look like?" Their review for Rise of Nations begins to point the way.

"...at least in RoN there is an entire economy, a political system and history. The outcome of the game does not depend on the action of one super-robot constructed by the player: as in 'Tropico,' we see all the citizens scurrying about their work and that work determines whether the player wins or loses." So, it would seem that a Maoist game should focus on a society rather than a single, heroic central character. The player's success or failure should take place within a group context rather than from an individual perspective. In addition, the economy and political system should be linked such that economic failure leads to political downfall and vice versa.

"It was an advance for RoN and others to 'assume' the world is non-violent and that the game occurs in that context, either as economic competition or cultural competition." Presumably, a Maoist game then would be based on achieving peace rather than dominance. Think PeaceCraft, an idea my friend, ClockworkGrue, came up with. Success in the game should be possible to achieve through economic, political, and/or cultural means rather than solely through military domination.

Are there any other fundamental design decisions that would lead to non-Capitalist ideologies in a game? Are there games out there that do this already?

Aside: I can't resist this little dig... I love the little bourgeois link to Amazon.com at the bottom of each review. It makes me wonder...

Athena's Legacy

2005-02-21T12:50:00.000-05:00

If making better games is a worthy goal, then helping to even the gender gap in the industry is a necessary step. Furthering that goal is a friend of mine Sarahlah, who runs the blog Athena's Legacy. It is an insightful look at the life and opinions of a female software engineer in the game industry.

Check it out at:
http://athenaslegacy.blogspot.com/

Microsoft explains 1337

2005-02-18T17:44:00.000-05:00

I guess leetspeek has arrived, since the Evil Empire has now posted a glossary on it. I wonder what this would have looked like if it was written in the 50s or 60s.

http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/children/kidtalk.mspx

Online Co-op: Where F*#% is it?

2005-02-11T17:04:00.000-05:00

Deca and I have been looking for a good Xbox Live enabled co-op game, something for those nights when getting our asses handed to us by 12-year-olds on Halo 2 just doesn't cut it. Now, I understand that online co-op presents a conundrum for developers. It represents more design work, more art work, and more programming; and the payoff for all that extra work is in no way guaranteed. However, I sense that, done right, online co-op could significantly enhance some games. The question is: "What would it take for developers to pursue online co-op more readily? Is there a way to do online co-op that's cost effective and still entertaining?"

We're looking for something that allows us to play a campaign together, not something that puts us on a team against other players (ie, not Battlefront, Halo 2, etc). Ideally, something like Halo's split-screen co-op, just over the Internet. There's no particular requirement that it be first person, either. Hunter: The Reckoning, while not my favorite game ever, was a ton of fun to play with a few friends gathered around the tv. It would be great to be able to engage in that kind of fun over Xbox Live.

Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory seems to have online co-op missions which sounds great to me [screenshots at Kotaku]. Are there any other good Xbox Live co-op games out there (or coming soon)?

Return to Halo 2

2005-02-04T22:36:00.000-05:00

Nope, this isn't a post about sequels. In honor of our resurrected Halo 2 nights, I'm throwingup a link to a late review posted recently over at 7hr33.org. While the writing leaves something to be desired, the sentiments are great. This is a player who clearly loves Halo, but is conflicted over Halo 2's shortcomings, just as I was in many ways.

On the graphical glitches: "During cinematics and gameplay alike, the player is greeted at almost every room entry, quick turn, or camera change with simple coloured blocks,mossy green or ocean blue figures, that are quickly gone over with another level of texture and detail to bring them up to par, as though 'the gnomes' had been slacking in their efforts to create the world ahead of you. Peripheral vision shows a brown box; turning towards it shows a shaded crate; looking away slightly replaces it with the same flat placeholder. While some of the things that have changed in-game are a matter of preference and will merely take some time to get used to, this is unacceptable."

On the story: "But as it stands the game is unfulfilling, not leaving you an artistic cliffhanger or with a feeling of curious suspense, but rather of disappointment and irresolution; the game is obviously not finished, and while the ending was 'intentional' (as though someone was accusing it of being 'accidental'), it remains unfinished, both in its entirety and in detail, by their own admission. Yes, there is certainly the possibility of a third installment, or even a 2.5, but this is hardly consoling; I have already spent my money, and have little desire to spend another bundle to merely get what was originally promised. It is the principle of the thing."

The author also touches on much more granular issues like weapon balance, difficulty, inadequacy of coop, and level design. After all is said and done, the mere addition of Xbox Live support catapults Halo 2 into "great game" status for me, but for some interesting critiques from someone who's clearly thought a lot about it, this article is well worth a read.

Cut Scenes, Schmut Scenes

2005-01-31T22:03:00.000-05:00

The always thought-provoking Clive Thompson just published an article at Slate arguing that games aren't good vehicles for narrative, citing cut scenes as a prime example. His basic argument is that stopping gameplay to show a cut scene interupts the fun of the experience. Games are about interactivity, not passivity. I won't recap the whole article, but that's the basic point (it's worth reading though).

There were some good responses around the Internet, like this one by Arkady from the Slate forums... and this one by Ron Gilbert. The first one argues that cut scenes serve the same purpose as box art, setting a more nuanced, detailed narrative scene in the head of the player before they become immersed in gameplay. Arkady calls for shorter cut scenes with more interactivity (even just a single choice). Ron Gilbert agrees with Thompson that games aren't good at narrative, but says that it's not a reason we shouldn't try.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this one. I agree that cut scenes run counter to the spirit of the medium. They break the flow of interactivity. Half-Life and Half-Life 2 show pretty clearly that games can work without cut scenes. However, I do believe that narrative in games is worth pursuing. Again, Half-Life 2 shows that narrative can be conveyed in-game. I think it should go much further though. Narrative in games can't be thought of as conveying a single, pre-written story. Game narrative should be about giving the player interesting choices (just as in any form of good gameplay). Designers interested in furthering narrative gameplay should be looking at mechanics that put the power of authorship into the player's hands.

Oh the Cleverness of Me!

2005-01-31T18:50:00.000-05:00

Its my birthday. Yay me! Oh and, Mercenaries may be buggy, but it has the most satisifying explosions. Turn it up and call in an air strike!!

Gender in Videogame Advertising

2005-01-11T20:52:00.000-05:00

I know this is a bit of a dead horse, but it bears beating some more, apparently. I recently picked up the latest issue of PLAY magazine, which I generally find to be well written and informative. Unfortunately, on the back of the magazine was a big, glossy ad for "Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude," the latest in the line of ribald Larry adventures. The problem is that the ad consists mostly of a rendering of a topless girl's chest. The girl's arms are folded across her front preventing complete exposure, but it's still a pretty tasteless and obvious attempt to seduce adolescent boys into buying the game (which is supposedly pretty bad, by the way).

Normally, this wouldn't bother me too much. Maxim has as much or more skin on its covers (and it's real skin too). However, I generally read magazines on the bus on the way to work. With this nudie ad on the back, I feel slightly dirty, like I'm looking at soft-core porn in public, even as I'm reading the insightful reviews inside. I feel like I'm probably offending the women around me on the bus. Not only that, but it reflects poorly on me as a person (at least in regards to what other people on the bus think of me).

In any case, I wish they wouldn't print crap like that. I guess, after looking at the PLAY website, I shouldn't be surprised, and I'm not. Still, why do magazines that seem so well put together otherwise, still feel the need to bow to the pressure of advertising dollars?

Some other readings about gender in games and game advertising:

"Views" by Robin Hunicke

"Getting the Girl" at 1UP.com

Gender Inclusive Game Design by Sheri Graner Ray (still reading this one, but I can say that it's pretty great)

UPDATE: There's a great article at WomenGamers.com that articulates the concept of "gamer shame." This is very much related to my embarassment at reading PLAY on the bus, though for me, the embarassment isn't at being a gamer but rather at supporting the adolescent nature of game culture.

Lucky Wander Boy

2005-01-06T17:48:00.000-05:00

I just finished readying Lucky Wander Boy by D.B. Weiss, and I recommend it as a good read in and of itself. However, it did get me thinking about games and culture...

Briefly, without spoilers, the book is about a guy who becomes obsessed with the obscure, "classic" arcade game, Lucky Wander Boy. His obsession leads him through a number of adventures, which make up the book's narrative. The book explores themes of geek-hood and nostalgia, but more than either of these, the book plays with the cultural significance that videogames have taken on in the minds of adults raised and weaned on Atari, Intellivision, etc. In fact, the book embodies this cultural significance.

Our grad school prof, Randy Pausch, used to talk about videogame concepts seeping into cultural awareness, his favorite example being the power-up. A deeper, more complex concept from games is the idea of multiple paths existing simultaneously. Especially in non-linear, simulationist, or emergent games, the same game can represent a multitude of stories or events. Even linear games have many different endings in the form of a player's frequent deaths.

This is not a new concept unique to videogames. Writers and philosophers have toyed with the idea frequently. However, videogames offer both an embodyment of the idea and a way to experience these multiple paths, contrived though it may be. With mass audiences, videogames also introduce these concepts into the cultural consciousness in a way that the writings of Borges, for example, never could.

The saved game represents the ability to explore multiple paths, though this exploration is sequential rather than simultaneous. This ability to not only accept multiple, simultaneous storylines, but to embrace and demand them seems to be seeping into our culture at large. The many endings of Wayne's World could be seen as a player's inability to accept defeat much like each retry of a tough level in a linear first person shooter. Each time, the characters revert to a "saved game" to replay the ending until they achieve success.

[Slight spoiler about the book] In Lucky Wander Boy, the repeated endings (each of the ending chapters is entitled "replay") are less about doggedly pursuing a single result than they are about filling in the many possible stories that exist. In fact, the endings of Lucky Wander Boy even start at different "save points" as the author goes back to various decision points in the story imagining multiple trajectories for the main character. The really amazing thing about these many endings is that they work together to form a far more satisfying end to the book than any one of them would alone. This is clearly due to excellent writing on Weiss's part, but I believe that it also has a lot to do with the fact that I, the reader, play videogames.

Happy New Year!

2005-01-04T11:52:00.000-05:00

Here is to a safe, happy, and hopefully crunch-free 2005... Well, crunch-free is a nice dream, but I can hope...

Fable wasn't that good

2005-01-04T11:40:00.000-05:00

I mean, cmon, he made a game where you can sexually abuse a giant cow...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4135453.stm

Hollywood Wannabes Need Not Apply

2004-12-22T14:29:00.000-05:00

Grumpy Gamer (Ron Gilbert) has a nice rumination on the actual numbers behind the "games are bigger than Hollywood" myth. I wish people would stop trying to frame the game industry's success in terms of Hollywood. It's a different medium, a different industry, a different business model, a different (though a bit similar) creative process... So why use twisted and misleading figures to claim some kind of superiority?

Gilbert makes the good point that blockbuster movies cost way more to make and rake in way more than games. There is no way that the game industry is anywhere near as big as the movies. Gilbert guesses that just about every person in the US watches movies in some form or another. Can the same be said of games? Games are still a fledgling medium/business.

We should be focusing on the cultural impact of games, which, though still nowhere near as deep as film, is definitely growing. Deca talks about the mass-market, and he's right to be thinking about them. The trick is to make mass-market games without dilluting the power of the medium. Gilbert alluded to the unspoken fear that games will never be as big as movies. I prefer to err on the side of optimism in this case. I have great hope for the medium as a cultural force.

Mass Market Games

2004-12-22T12:35:00.000-05:00

This is the first Christmas season since I've been a full time member of the games industry. As I buy presents for people, the need for mass market games has really stood out to me. I live in a pretty isolated world of gamers. Everyone I hang out with or work with are serious, hardcore players. So when it came time to buy a game for my sister's boyfriend, I was at a loss. Then it occured to me: EA games! I would rarely buy one as a present for any of my hardcore friends, but I know that my mass-market friends wont turn the same sceptical eye towards games like Need For Speed Underground 2 or Goldeneye 2. They dont even know what metacritic is, let alone care what a game scores on it.

This isnt a bad thing. Up till now, like many of my collegues, I've had a slight disdain for the somewhat watered down, over compromised style of EA's non-sports games. But the need for them is there. Not many mass-markets are going to pick up Knights of the Old Republic, World of Warcraft or even Prince of Persia and 'get' those kind of games.

This realization will inform my design from now on. Will my sister's boyfriend get this? Would I buy this game as a present for someone who is not hardcore?

The Half-Life 2 Experience

2004-12-19T01:06:00.000-05:00

I'm a little late to this party, but this evening, I began to play Half-Life 2. I'm about an hour into it now, and I just wanted to note a few things. I'll try not to harp too much on points that have been covered ad infinitum by other sources.

First of all, I bought Half-Life 2 and downloaded it over Steam. This process was completely and totally seamless and transparent. It's one thing to say you're going to make an end run around traditional publishing with online distribution, and quite another thing to put together a system as easy and reassuring as Valve's Steam. I'm not a PC gamer; I much prefer consoles for the no-hassle experience. However, Steam took care of pretty much everything involved in getting the game running on my machine even reminding me to update my graphics card drivers, which was the only part where my intervention was required. I love it.

Second, Valve has created an engine capable of spectacular feats of real-time rendering. At the same time, they've created an engine that scales pretty well to less beefy machines. I'm playing on a laptop with a wussy mobile processor (Pentium M 1.5 GHz). Granted, I have a gig of RAM and a 128 MB video card (GeForce FX Go5650), but hardware guides have indicated that the CPU can be a bottleneck. In any case, my laptop seems to be able to run the game pretty well with decent graphical options turned on (no-anti-aliasing though). The game looks amazing, which leads me to my next point.

I've always been in the camp of making games more artistically stylized, moving away from realism. The uncanny valley always bothered me, and I'd much rather see games with distinct art styles (Ico, Windwaker, World of Warcraft) than creepily flawed attempts at photorealism (the close-ups in Halo 2). That said, Half-Life 2 makes a convincing case for the pursuit of realism. The quality of the graphics, combined with the stellar animation, absolutely contributes to the physical and emotional involvement of the player in the world of City 17. I'm not saying Half-Life 2 doesn't have an art style. In fact, I'd say their art director did a fantastic job of making sure the world has an understated style and cohesive look. However, I would say that in terms of graphics, Half-Life 2 has bridged the uncanny valley. Oh yeah, and the physics doesn't hurt.

One little nitpick so far: why don't I have a body? In the Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, another first-person game, the player can look down and see Riddick's feet. I find it seriously jarring to look down and see no Freeman feet. It's even freakier when I "pick up" an item and it's just floating in front of me. It breaks the illusion.

Other than that, I'm loving it. The atmosphere is incredible, and the storytelling is incredible. And don't get me started about the indirect control. I'll post more as I progress.

The Death of Football games?

2004-12-16T13:56:00.000-05:00

There has been alot of talk lately about EA's exclusive deal with the NFL. I don't particularly think its the end of the football genre. I think that on the current hardware there isn't much more that can be done with games like Madden. I don't lament for Sega's sports games because they were not that much better than Madden. They got alot of their rave reviews simply because they were not EA.

While everyone is bemoaning the expected lack of competition in the market, which led the previous incarnations of Madden to stagnate, I'm more curious to see what will happen with other companie's games.

The first part of the answer has already been announced. Midway will take its Blitz franchise and combine it with the ESPN TV drama Playmakers. I loved the show Playmakers because of its gritty behind the scenes depictions of the life of a football player. The on-field action wasnt a big deal.

It begs the question, can you make a game that is more about a dramatic story, but happens to have football action too? People talk about genre combining but can it been done with sports as one of the base parts? Can you make an interesting game of Monday through Saturday and still have a fun Sunday? GTA/Fable meets Madden?

Fear for anyone who plays Halo for the story

2004-12-16T13:40:00.000-05:00

Let me start my response by quoting you CJ: "One more gripe before I go back to playing the game...."

That statement proves the point I'm about to make. With Halo, the story is nice, but its just the whipped cream on a great piece of pie. Anyone (re:EvilLiev) who is obsessed with the story of Halo must be desperate for new SciFi or something. It has potential but as a colleague of mind put it, its a "just add water" story. It is the gameplay that made everyone buy it. But its a lot easier for people to discuss the story than it is to compare how great it felt when the risk/reward choices forced them to flush out an elite. Only game designers see that kind of stuff.

Even though I may be disappointed in Halo or Halo 2's story, I still like their storytelling. It is a great example of how to tell one in a game. It is more than happy to recede while the gameplay is king.

That said, I thought that the game itself was flat compared to Halo 1. In the original, the gameplay really ramped up. With the introduction of each new enemy and each new level, you could really feel how you were having to change your strategy and improve as you played. With Halo2, that happened some but instead of one nice steep ramp, you get two smaller, shallower ones. The Arbiter sections were fun but it felt more like playing two short games instead of one, more satisfying one. And it didn't help that the whole heretic section had nothing to do with the greater storyline, it was an unnecessary aside.

And I agree that the end is not satisfying in any way. And I don't say this because we don't find out what happened, I understand its a cliffhanger. Its about the gameplay. They never really setup that the fight with the Grey Brute is the end level, so I played the whole thing thinking at least one more level was coming. I remember thinking "if this is the Arbiters final battle, I cant wait to see Master Chief's final battle." And when you see the end cutscene, you believe that another one is coming. Then it ends. I also hate that I didn't get to finish the game as Master Chief. Its those two factors combined that makes it a very hollow ending.

WTF. Can someone explain Halo 2 to me?

2004-12-07T23:16:00.000-05:00

[Spoiler Alert: I'll be discussing Halo 2 without shying away from story details or plot twists. If you haven't finished the game and plan on doing so, don't read any further.] First of all, let me say that Halo 2 is an amazing game. There is so much content to enjoy when you add up the large levels, the many weapons and vehicles, the AI, the beautiful landscapes, and of course the online multiplayer. Bungie has created something special, and any Xbox owner would be doing themselves a disservice by not playing this game (aside: check out these wonderful movies to get a feel for the world that Bungie has created).

That said, what the hell is up with the story in the single player campaign!?!? I finished the game on normal difficulty this weekend, and I'm still mad that there was essentially no resolution at all. It's one thing to set up a sequel, but Halo 2 feels totally incomplete. A lot of reviews that I've seen say that there's no denoument. That's the understatement of the year. I would argue that there's not even a suitable climax. Even The Empire Strikes Back with its many loose ends had a feeling of climax and denouement.

Ok, let's hit some specifics. The story starts off pretty well with the flipping back and forth between Master Chief and the Arbiter. I found this to be an intriguing technique for giving the player both sides of the story (just as Clive Thompson did). The convoluted politics and machinations of the Covenant hierarchs were a tad confusing, but I was willing to work with that presuming it would all be clear in the end. It didn't help that the different Covenant Prophets all looked the same even though they seemingly ruled different groups of aliens. In addition, focusing on the action (and frustration) kept me from paying strict attention to the story.

Thing really started to get crazy with the introduction of Gravemind. Maybe I didn't listen to the cutscene closely enough, but I didn't quite get what he/it was. Other than a Little Shop of Horrors reject, I couldn't really guess. I later sort of deduced that Gravemind had something to do with the Flood, but again, I'm not positive. Let's assume for the sake of argument that I just wasn't paying close enough attention to the cutscenes and Gravemind makes some kind of dramatic sense. Normally, you'd expect something like Gravemind to be a central part of the rest of the game, but we never see him again until a little snippet after the credits. The major twist of introducing Gravemind is basically never followed up.

After playing different storylines as Master Chief and the Arbiter, having them come together at Gravemind was satisfying. However, the goals set for the new duo are never realized. Not because something stops you, but because the story never gets there. The big crime is that Bungie doesn't come through on a single promise set up by the story. Gravemind is introduced, but never followed up on. The Halo network is activated, but you never have a chance to stop them. The Covenant is heading back to Earth, but you never get a chance to try to thwart their schemes. Can't they give us something? Beating Tartarus does not cut it.

One more gripe before I go back to playing the game: there are parts that I found to be too hard. You might call me a wuss or not hard-core... and I'd be the first to agree with you (when it comes to games), but I want to be able to finish the game. There were times toward the end when I seriously considered putting the controller down and not picking it back up. Couldn't they have put some kind of dynamic difficulty adjustment in? All you've got to do is reduce the number of enemies when you notice that a player has restarted the same checkpoint 20 times. Frustration kills a player's enjoyment. David Thomas has a good comment on this.

Optimism (a late Thanksgiving rumination)

2004-12-01T16:48:00.000-05:00

Recently (within the last few years), there's been ongoing murmurs of discontent with the current risk-averse state of the videogame industry. People have been decrying the lack of original IP and gametypes as well as the industry's reliance on sequels, franchises, and licensed IP. While much of that is true, I have a much more optimistic outlook on the immediate future of the artform (and the biz for that matter). In the spirit of the holidays, I'll take a look at the reasons for hope and excitement this fall.

First off, sequels, franchises, and licensed IP aren't bad things if the games are good. I was talking with Deca last night about sequels, and he observed that, if done right, sequels (and spiritual sequels) are really just an extension of the iterative design process. They give developers a chance to improve on a successful formula. As a consumer of games, how can you argue with "Halo, but better" (ie, Halo 2)? The same goes for franchises. Each new game is a chance for developers to add to the stories and worlds of previous outings, while improving or even *gasp* innovating gameplay. How many different kinds of titles has Mario been featured in? Nintendo uses its franchises to sell new innovations. Remember that Super Mario 64 blazed the way for 3D platformers, even though Mario had been around for years. Even licensed IP allows developers to contribute new and different game types. Think about Spiderman 2, with it's web-swinging navigation of a GTA-like New York. More conservative efforts, such as the Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay, still express high production values and a willingness to experiment (first-person hand-to-hand combat was done very well in Riddick).

The current glut of high quality games this fall is a good sign that the industry is healthy. Even with the majority of games being sequels, franchises, or licensed IP, the overall quality of the games on offer heralds a new era in which high production values are a given and innovation becomes necessary for differentiation. If this many games are this good, then some smart developers are going to realize that innovation can make their game stand out.

In fact, this fall is seeing innovation already starting to hit the mainstream. Nintendo, always pushing the gameplay envelope, has released the DS handheld, and although it isn't universally loved, it has received much praise for its leaps forward in gameplay. Touchscreen interaction and dual displays are putting new tools in the hands of developers, who seem to be responding with quirky and original games. Industrial design issues aside, the DS seems to be garnering solid game reviews across the board. There seems to be genuine excitement at the prospect of something new and different.

Innovation is happening in game delivery as well. November saw the introduction of Valve's Steam content delivery system, designed to bring Valve games straight to consumers, bypassing the traditional publishing and retail middlemen. Again, as with all innovation, there have been rough spots, but the reaction to Steam seems to be positive, and the launch was surprisingly smooth. In addition, BioWare has launched an online store through which they are selling modules for their Neverwinter Nights platform. Both Valve and BioWare seem to be developing platforms (or engines) upon which they can build and distribute multiple games. The Source Engine and the Aurora Engine are also both open for the mod community, from which the developers can hand pick the best to release as premium content. The possibility for episodic content seems quite ripe as well, even on consoles, given the profusion of systems that are now online.

Finally, despite many predictions of the death of the independent developer, there are many indicators that indy game development is sustainable. Valve's Steam and BioWare's efforts point to the potential digital distribution and self-publishing. The Independent Games Festival and other festivals provide a forum for independent games, many of which are highly innovative. Indy devs are also finding alternative ways to fund their work, through creativity and perseverence. The massively multiplayer A Tale in the Desert has been an indy success with community-based gameplay that bigger competitors haven't yet perfected. Cecropia is taking a totally new approach to mass-market "interactive animated films."

So I am thankful and optimistic this holiday season. Though there are a lot of things that can be improved in the industry, there's a lot to be happy about. Here's hoping that the coming year show's even more excitement and creativity.

Grumpy About Postmodern Cleverness

2004-10-26T14:27:00.000-04:00

Going back to the topic of immersion... Deca and I were conversing over IM about the relative intrusiveness (or lack thereof) of in-game characters referencing buttons or other things that exist outside the gameworld. This grew out of Ernest Adams' column about "postmodern self-referencing" which claimed that Metal Gear Solid broke narrative immersion when NPCs referenced the player's gamepad, giving instructions on what buttons to push. [Disclaimer: I've never actually played MGS, so take my thoughts on that particular game with a grain of salt]

I tend to agree with Adams, though I think he's a little more grumpy about it that necessary. MGS is a pretty popular game, so it can't be all bad. For me, the distinction that Adams makes between types of immersion is the key. Deca and I didn't really discuss this, but after re-reading Adams' column, I have to agree that I wouldn't mind the button-referencing in MGS... as long as my goal in playing was to beat the game (tactical and/or strategic immersion). However, I tend to play games looking for narrative immersion, and therefore, I am generally put off by things that draw my attention to the fact that the world is fake.

Now in the case of MGS, many would argue that the self-referencial stuff is clever post-modernism, in addition to being necessary for tutorial purposes. I can appreciate "clever post-modernism," but if it takes away from my enjoyment of the game, I'm not going to cut it much slack. As for tutorial purposes, I prefer overlays, particularly as they are handled in games like Halo. Somehow, I can accept those as removed from the representation of the gameworld, just as I accept the controller as an eventually transparent interface (hopefully).

Loneliness and the Ubiquitous Movie Drug Scene

2004-10-11T17:01:00.000-04:00

As is becoming a common occurence for me, I just watched a movie that got me thinking about games. It seems I can't watch a movie without wondering if the same feelings and mind-states could be evoked through gameplay. I am aware of the trap of comparing two very different media, but at the same time, I can't help but dream of gameplay that includes the same emotional connection and punch that film conveys.

In any case, the movie I just saw was Garden State. You may ask, what could Garden State have to do with games? Well, I've noticed that some game developers (Neil Young at EA, I'm looking at you) have fixated on the idea of a game "making you cry." This is generally a metaphor for the challenge of evoking emotion in a player, sadness presumably being a difficult case. Garden State is a movie that deals with sadness, but it also deals with loneliness and alienation. The movie got me wondering what sorts of gameplay would prompt a player to feel lonely or alienated. Would it be enough to have all characters in the gameworld respond to the player character with derision... or just outright ignore the player? Could a relationship between the PC and an NPC be developed to the point that when that NPC stopped reciprocating, the player would feel something? There must be other ways to achieve this effect.

The other thing that Garden State had was a drug scene. A lot of movies have drug scenes, and the one in Garden State wasn't particularly any better or worse than any other drug scene, but I was struck again by the sense of loneliness and the detachment that accompanies the scene. Games have tried drug scenes before. Max Payne had some memorable ones, and I hear that the new NARC game will include drug-themed power-ups. Neither of these addresses the distortion of both physical and emotional distance that being high/drunk/whatever can sometimes include. That's what the movies capture so well. I'd like to try to design a game that alters the player's sense of game time (slowing down and speeding up) as well as the focusing and unfocusing of visual and audio cues. In addition, warping space could add a sense of surrealism. I know it's a weird goal, but I thought it might be fun to try.

Gaming with Kids: A Clue to the Future

2004-09-30T13:27:00.000-04:00

Just finished reading an excellent column by Colleen Hannon over at GamerDad. The article covers some issues about how parents ought to be involved with their kids' gaming, but what struck me more was her description of playing Fable with her kids.

She played it first to be sure it was ok (it's rated M, after all), and then allowed her kids to play, supervised, of course. Hannon cites the depth of cause and effect, choice and consequence, as one of the key aspects of this game that make it good for playing with children. She used this central gameplay mechanic as a jumping off point for many discussions with her children about morality, life, the universe, etc.

One son even found that though he had played as evil throughout the game, he couldn't bring himself to make the final, ultimate choice as an evil character. Here the game is not just a tool of self-expression, but of self-discovery.

To me, this marks a step on the way toward games as art.

Fantasy Football: Sweet Frustration

2004-09-15T22:40:00.000-04:00

So... Not to abruptly change the subject or anything...

I'm playing in my first Fantasy Football league this NFL season. [Sorry, Deca, it was a last minute decision, and I jumped into a league with my brothers, otherwise I would have joined your league. Perhaps next season we can all play together.]

In any case, I was last in the draft position, therefore getting two picks in a row (last pick of the first round and first pick of the second round). Running backs seem to be the hot ticket position this year (as my brothers told me) so I was planning to pick up a couple RBs. I didn't expect to get amazing picks, but I was hoping that I could pick up some solid anchors for my team. Unfortunately, my internet connection died just as my pick came up. I thought I might be ok, since there was a 1.5 minute timer for each pick. I got my connection back within a few seconds (30 or so) only to find that the online draft program had put me on "auto-pilot" and made picks for me automatically without waiting the 1.5 minutes for each pick. Instead of two stud RBs, I ended up with a QB and a defensive squad. Granted, I got the Patriots defense (arguably one of the best in the league), and I got Peyton Manning at QB (again, one of the better picks), but my agency in the draft was completely destroyed. I spent the rest of the draft playing catch-up. Everyone else got their two (and even three) RBs and WRs before I had my first two.

It was still fun, but that one frustrating moment got me thinking... Is there a way to maintain that sense of immediacy and fun over the internet while avoiding issues of connection problems? Is it as simple as a more robust draft system? How important is the sense of agency involved in a fantasy draft?

VistaVision for the Soul

2004-09-15T22:28:00.000-04:00

Yeah... this is a tough one. I agree, an emergent system is probably necessary for multi-linear/emergent emotional narrative. The Sims and Grand Theft Auto III/Vice City point the way, but both fall far short of what I'm looking for. Fable might be another step in the right direction too (I just picked it up today and probably won't be able to play it til next week).

I think the generic concept of role playing (different from the current concept of RPG videogames) is core to the idea of emotional immersion. As Deca said, you don't want to play yourself, you want to play someone else. Thus, I think techniques that support role playing are key. Anything that helps the player feel like the character they are playing is good. The acrobatic abilities of the prince in PoP:tSoT help make the player feel like a Persian ninja, for example. Techniques of perspective are helpful, as well, though they are less understood, whether first-person or third-person. In addition, the player's choices must have consequence in the game world. If they don't, the immersion of roleplaying evaporates in an instant, revealing the mechanics of the game (not inherently a bad thing, but not so good for emotional involvement).

I'm really tired, so if this doesn't quite make sense, my apologies.

We need VistaVision!

2004-09-13T00:45:00.000-04:00

If only every house had a semi-curved screen that we sat in while playing games. Then we'd get that peripheral vision that Clubberjack wants. This would at least provide that physical form of immersion that makes you feel like you are really there. The closest I've ever come was when I closed all the shades of my dorm room and turned out all the lights, just so I could play Silent Hill in total darkness. At least that way my eye never got distracted by light falling on my Texas Flag or whatever movie poster I thought was cool at the time. The second closest was the time we hijacked a conference room at school and project Halo onto every wall. That was immersive, but in a different way: you couldn't look at any point in the room and not see Master Chief. And if you closed your eyes you still heard "Killing Spree" or that random player yelling cause some guy on his team with a character named "Jesus" just fragged him, forcing the game to print "You were betrayed by Jesus" on the screen. But I digress...

The emotional immersion seems like a tricky subject. At least with physical immersion there really is not much we can do. I beleive that until we get those mini-Imaxs in the living room, its impossible.But immersion through emotional manipulation is attainable, as it helps players get into the "zone" and lose track of time.

As for CJ's question about multi-linear emotion, I want to believe it is possible, but lately I find myself agreeing with Warren Spector's GDC talk (I tried to find a link to his slides, but they don't seem to be posted). He said that multilinear plots end up diluting the whole story. In a way, I think this concept would have manifested itself in another medium. While live action roleplaying, murder mystery theater and renaissance faires seem to delve into this area, none of those seem to really achieve the personal emotional ride that even a simple Hero's Journey story can.

There are also production issues limiting this sort of thing. Every game that has tried to have a true branching story has had a hard time doing it right, and if they did it took forever. (Feel free to correct me on that one)

I think it will take a Will Wright-esque emergent system game to really allow a multi-linear expereince that still has emotional weight.

The central mechanic for emotional manipulation would have to be empathy. To do this:
1. The on screen agent of action can not be the player. "I" would not be killing nazis and there is no way that digi-hot girl would be talking to me
2... Well, CJ, I'll let you add the second item to this list and we can keep a running tab.

Reduced to Drooling Fanboy (and something about linearity)

2004-09-11T13:25:00.000-04:00

This actually relates to the current conversation, if only a bit. The spiritual successor to the brilliant "ICO" has been announced. "Wanda and the Colossus" (official site in Japanese) isn't really a sequel to "ICO," but seems to follow the same visual style and fairytale story. Hopefully, we'll see the same deep emotional experience, as well. To say that I'm excited about this is an extreme understatement.

The one problem I had with "ICO," as I alluded to in the previous post, is that the player has very little impact on what happens. You either lose and die or succeed and see the end of the story. There is only one storyline. What you do as a player has no impact on that story. Perhaps this is how they were able to engineer such an emotional experience. Having only one storyline certainly makes it easier to use cinematic narrative techniques, especially in the heavy use of cutscenes. On the other hand, the emotion was also heavily reinforced by the gameplay. Sure, you were solving spacial puzzles (as in "Tomb Raider" or "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"), but the key component of many of the puzzles was the girl, Yorda, who must come with you but can't access all the places you can. You have ways to move her around, grabbing her hand and pulling her, calling to her, etc. Although Yorda's existence in the game can be seen as purely mechanical (after all you "die" if she is captured by the shadow spirits), the animation and sound design enhance these mechanics to the point where they become expressive tools that convey emotion and hook the player into actually caring.

So... my big question is this: Can you use emotionally expressive gameplay mechanics in a more emergent (or at least multi-linear) story structure? Could "Wanda and the Colossus" have the same emotional impact with a more player directed story?

[UPDATE] Here's some screenshots for the fans.

Does Immersion Exist?... Maybe...

2004-09-10T13:56:00.000-04:00

It's funny, I was just thinking about the same thing. I've been playing "The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay," and while the game is quite good, I keep thinking that the game just isn't as engrossing as I want it to be. Honestly, I think one of the first steps toward true immersion is a greater field of view. I know it sounds pedestrian (not to mention that VR has pretty much been proclaimed dead), but having peripheral vision goes a long way. Creeping through the dank, dirty corridors of Butcher Bay would be so much scarier and so much more real if I could have the claustrophobic feeling of being surrounded by the walls. As it is, the distortion at the edges of my screen just calls attention to the fact that I'm not actually seeing the place as though I were there.

The other thing that I believe to be crucial to attaining immersion is emotional connection. I know this comes close to beating a dead horse (though I personally think this particular dead horse should be beaten till it comes back to life), but the games that have come the closest to immersing me are the ones that got me emotionally. These moments are few and far between in games. Here's two that come to mind for me though:

The first level of "Max Payne" in which Max's (the player's) wife is being murdered left me breathless. In the moment, I completely forgot any notion of gameplay and was completely focused on getting to my wife. Every bullet had the full conviction of my fear, anger, and protectiveness. It was utterly devastating when I found her dead.

Second, the last parts of "Ico" were also beautifully done in such a way as to connect emotionally with the player. The emotional moments in "Ico" are many and sustained nicely, but they are also supported by many cut-scenes, which I consider to be anti-immersive, since they take control away from the player.

In Riddick, I haven't gotten past the feeling of manipulating game structures. I have no visceral reactions to the game, just intellectual ones. Of course, none of this helps establish the existence of "immersion." I do think that immersion is attainable, but I have yet to play a game that achieves immersion for an extended period of time.

Does Immersion Really Exist?

2004-09-08T18:18:00.000-04:00

I'll get everything started by positing this theory: immersion does not really exist in video games. Or at least, it doesn't as defined by Janet Murray. The idea of getting lost in something to the point that you feel totally in the game, fully empathizing with the characaters and instinctively reacting as if you were in the game's world is non-sense. What people seem to really mean by immersion is "total focus." All the brain's functions are pointed towards the game. The player is in the zone. The problem: that isn't really immersion. It may seem like it, and it may feel like it. But its not possible to break the fourth wall. At least not while the hardware is in your living room, on your tv, playing while you sit on your couch.

Welcome (Back) to Laundry Sessions

2004-09-07T13:39:00.000-04:00

Well, Laundry Sessions is off to a new start. We've moved from our old server and software so there'll be a few days of catch up as we transfer as much of the old content as possible/necessary. Then it's off to the brave new world of laundrysessions.blogspot.com.

Glad to have you with us.