I went to a games convention on the weekend. There was a section with Indie developers, so I decided to go and hand a link to my portfolio around and see if anyone was interested in hiring me ('cause right now I work at a factory, far from what I'd really like to be doing). What I saw there was really disappointing, however. While the games they showed off were pretty, I saw only a couple of inventive things there, and nothing particularly inspiring.
There was a game with a penguin that slid on an undulating surface. There was no variety and the game was not interesting for longer than the time it took for me to fail. There was a stealth game that the developers had obviously put more in presentation and graphics than the gameplay, which had some annoying unfairnesses, such as the cops turning infinitely fast with no warning.
As games to get a little bit of money in to start working on better games, they were ok. Like iphone games. Short, cheap, unmemorable. But I got the impression that it was this sort of game they were aiming for, and no higher.
Something I've noticed of the better games out there (not on my own) is that there's two parts to all of them. There's the side for the casual (or casual-ish, I'm not using the normal meaning of casual gamer here) and the side for the hardcore. A casual player of, say, Bayonetta, will button-mash their way through, even on hard mode, and then go on to the next game. The hardcore will learn all the various useful moves, unlock everything, and maybe even write a strategy guide for GameFAQs if there isn't already one. The casual player of Super Metroid will play through the entire game, maybe even trying for 100%. The hardcore player will try to use glitches, or at least highly challenging tricks, to see how much of the game they can skip, or maybe try a 100% speedrun or something. Even so-called "casual games" can have rediculous levels of hardcore-ness to them when someone gets obsessed with them. It's the same for competative games. Games that don't have room for both casual and hardcore players tend to die more easily. The hardcore player of BlazBlue will be scrutinizing the frame counts of every move, whereas the casual player may not ever even use cancels, and only bursts randomly. Casual players become hardcore players. If you don't have the casual, the hardcore group will be very small. If you don't have the hardcore side, people will get bored after a time and move on.
I think it's often best to design a game so that both styles of play are valid. Actually, I went back and added the word "often" to that last sentence just now. Most people are not as discerning between well and poorly designed games as I am, and are quite happy with, say, minesweeper (by the way, that game is badly designed. Even very late game, you still have to make completely random choices that could end your game prematurely). But even if some people don't notice your game is well made, a few people could, and that could boost how many people enjoy your game, thus telling others about it, thus getting more sales and reputation, making it more likely that people will buy your next one.
This is why I was disheartened at the developers at the convention. They seemed like they just made games, without thinking about them, and a lack of any hardcore appeal was one of the negative outcomes.
(I learnt some of this stuff from David Sirlin's website. Now there's a guy who thinks about games!)
14.7.10
I forgot to title this post. New site!
So, some people (Ha, I lie. *One* person. I don't have that many players yet.) have expressed dissatisfaction at my continued use of divShare. Well, stuff divshare! I am now the proud owner of a website! A small, free, thing that uses a template, but a site nonetheless! There are no waiting periods for downloads! Yay!
Unless, of course, I run out of bandwidth, but that's 100 gigs per month. Plenty, plenty.
I am now plunging head-first into the weird world of making web pages. It's not pretty. I wouldn't want to live there. But I must admit, I find it interesting.
Here 'tis!
Unless, of course, I run out of bandwidth, but that's 100 gigs per month. Plenty, plenty.
I am now plunging head-first into the weird world of making web pages. It's not pretty. I wouldn't want to live there. But I must admit, I find it interesting.
Here 'tis!
4.7.10
Zelda Master Quest 3heart-shieldless challenge!
I recently started playing Metroid Prime again. I had a quick look on GameFAQs to see what sorts of tricks and secrets I could find, and I spotted a "Minimum Percent Walkthrough". It seems that, far from trying to get 100% items, there are people trying to get as small a percent as possible. Currently? 23%. If you know the game, you know that's very impressive. It uses all kinds of cheats and tricks to skip large portions of the game. After a quick look around, I discovered this was common for Metroid games. For example; Super Metroid's version of the guide is down to 15% (unless you don't mind using glitches, then it's 14%).
I also came across, on the TIG Source Forums, a procedurally generated Super Metroid like game, still in development, called Gentrieve. It got me thinking how it would be possible to do a minimum percent run through a game that changes every playthrough. In Gentrieve, probably to combat this, every room that you need an item to progress through is specifically designed so that you must have the item and there is no other way. This actually seems a bit sad, but completely understandable. With less rigidly designed levels, you risk a level being made that the player can use to accidentally skip parts of the game, which you don't want. However, levels made like this make you feel more railroaded, and it feels more gamey, like the place was made for you (which, of course, it was, but it always is. The idea is to make it not seem that way).
I have always loved the Metal Gear series (yet to play Solid 4, sadly). My favourite so far is 3. It is like the designers made a sandbox game that just happened to have a storyline. You can just mess around so much. Some of the videos of clever tricks and funny setups on Youtube are amazing. What they have done is create the game so that the player has a large scope for experimenting and arseing around, which is a game trait normally reserved for open world games.
What I love to see in games is scope for players to play the way they want. Linear games are fine, but freedom within the limitations is a factor that can elevate a game from good to great (in my view anyway). It's about creativity.
(To a certain extent, this also applies to competitive games, but it's a different kind of creativity, I think. Although, it's probably even more important there.)
I also came across, on the TIG Source Forums, a procedurally generated Super Metroid like game, still in development, called Gentrieve. It got me thinking how it would be possible to do a minimum percent run through a game that changes every playthrough. In Gentrieve, probably to combat this, every room that you need an item to progress through is specifically designed so that you must have the item and there is no other way. This actually seems a bit sad, but completely understandable. With less rigidly designed levels, you risk a level being made that the player can use to accidentally skip parts of the game, which you don't want. However, levels made like this make you feel more railroaded, and it feels more gamey, like the place was made for you (which, of course, it was, but it always is. The idea is to make it not seem that way).
I have always loved the Metal Gear series (yet to play Solid 4, sadly). My favourite so far is 3. It is like the designers made a sandbox game that just happened to have a storyline. You can just mess around so much. Some of the videos of clever tricks and funny setups on Youtube are amazing. What they have done is create the game so that the player has a large scope for experimenting and arseing around, which is a game trait normally reserved for open world games.
What I love to see in games is scope for players to play the way they want. Linear games are fine, but freedom within the limitations is a factor that can elevate a game from good to great (in my view anyway). It's about creativity.
(To a certain extent, this also applies to competitive games, but it's a different kind of creativity, I think. Although, it's probably even more important there.)
19.6.10
Now playing: Chrono Trigger - Magus' Theme
I never listen to music while I program. I have learned that, in any task that is able to take your full concentration, if you listen to music at the same time, you slow down or become less effective. It is especially true for me, as most of my music is videogame soundtracks or remixes of videogame soundtracks. Listening to the music reminds me of the game it is attached to, thus taking more of my mind away than other music would. It's not just music, of course, but the temptation to turn on some music while at your computer is very high, because it's so easy.
Of course, I'm not the first person to work this out. The writer of the book "The Animator's Survival Kit", Richard Williams, wrote about how he once foolishly asked an older animator if he listened to classical music while animating, only to get the loud, angry response "I'm not smart enough to do two things at once!" (or something, I don't have the quote handy). On the back of a learner driver's log book, I saw a picture of a car crash with the words "Good drivers just drive" and some other stuff.
I told all this to someone I know who writes fiction, but he told me that he works better when listening to music. The idea is that he uses music to set the mood for the scene he's writing, something I hadn't even considered. However, for the creation of games, I think there would be only a few instances in which this would work. I shall remain musicless.
Two other things that can have a major detriment to your work: E3 updates and Bayonetta. Both together will prevent you from changing a single variable for at least three days.
Of course, I'm not the first person to work this out. The writer of the book "The Animator's Survival Kit", Richard Williams, wrote about how he once foolishly asked an older animator if he listened to classical music while animating, only to get the loud, angry response "I'm not smart enough to do two things at once!" (or something, I don't have the quote handy). On the back of a learner driver's log book, I saw a picture of a car crash with the words "Good drivers just drive" and some other stuff.
I told all this to someone I know who writes fiction, but he told me that he works better when listening to music. The idea is that he uses music to set the mood for the scene he's writing, something I hadn't even considered. However, for the creation of games, I think there would be only a few instances in which this would work. I shall remain musicless.
Two other things that can have a major detriment to your work: E3 updates and Bayonetta. Both together will prevent you from changing a single variable for at least three days.
3.5.10
Congratulations! Here's a voucher for my shop.
Yay! I finally destroyed the three porcos in level 4! Or I defeated Lizardman in that really annoying story mission! This means I unlocked something!.. in the shop.
That's a really good way to take some of the fun out of unlocking things. You do some grand feat, but to actually get the reward, you have to do some grinding. I suppose it does keep people playing the game, but I've never really been sure of why this is a good thing in games that aren't mostly online multiplayer. I have felt satisfied by short games before. Encouraging people to stick around for the DLC is a reason to encourage grinding, I guess, but that opens another whole issue I don't want to go into. Anyway, I promise I won't put unlockables in the shop in my games unless I have a good reason. Or maybe as an alternative to unlocking... hmm...
Really, I can not think of another reason why you'd put unlockables in the shop. It's unfun.
I sat here thinking for almost ten minutes before I realised that it's ok for a blog post to be this short.
That's a really good way to take some of the fun out of unlocking things. You do some grand feat, but to actually get the reward, you have to do some grinding. I suppose it does keep people playing the game, but I've never really been sure of why this is a good thing in games that aren't mostly online multiplayer. I have felt satisfied by short games before. Encouraging people to stick around for the DLC is a reason to encourage grinding, I guess, but that opens another whole issue I don't want to go into. Anyway, I promise I won't put unlockables in the shop in my games unless I have a good reason. Or maybe as an alternative to unlocking... hmm...
Really, I can not think of another reason why you'd put unlockables in the shop. It's unfun.
I sat here thinking for almost ten minutes before I realised that it's ok for a blog post to be this short.
20.4.10
Tell me something I don't know.
Ico is an awesome game. It has a fantastic, immersive atmosphere. It has a simple, but well-told story. The gameplay makes sense. Aside from it's shortness (less than two hours on second playthrough here! Not speedrunning!) there is very little wrong with it. The only thing you really need to know before playing are the controls, which are easy enough to find in the options menu.
Which is good, because the manual is atrocious.
Sure, it tells you the controls. But it decided that it wasn't done talking, and went on to give you the story, characters, and every location in the game, in the order they are met. In a game which relies so heavily on story, with a sense of wonder and exploration (even if there isn't really any exploration), this is a bad move. I was lucky enough to get a copy without the manual. Knowing almost nothing about the game, I was awed by it. Upon later reading the manual online, I'm sure it would have had a lesser effect on me. Not much lesser, but I'll never know for sure.
I suspect what many people forget is that, like it or not, the manual is part of the game. As such, it should be designed just as carefully. Never mind the fact that few people will read it. Having a well-designed manual shows an attention to detail that gamers can respect.
Yes, I'm aware the manual for Sun on a Stick is a user-unfriendly text document, but my excuse is that it's five years old. My better manual design shows with The Underground. There isn't one. I decided to leave it to the player to decide what the goal is. Providing a manual would have compromised the game's design. Viewed in that light, it becomes rather obvious that a manual is a definite part of the game it is attached to. As such, it deserves to be considered in equal measure to other parts of the game.
Which is good, because the manual is atrocious.
Sure, it tells you the controls. But it decided that it wasn't done talking, and went on to give you the story, characters, and every location in the game, in the order they are met. In a game which relies so heavily on story, with a sense of wonder and exploration (even if there isn't really any exploration), this is a bad move. I was lucky enough to get a copy without the manual. Knowing almost nothing about the game, I was awed by it. Upon later reading the manual online, I'm sure it would have had a lesser effect on me. Not much lesser, but I'll never know for sure.
I suspect what many people forget is that, like it or not, the manual is part of the game. As such, it should be designed just as carefully. Never mind the fact that few people will read it. Having a well-designed manual shows an attention to detail that gamers can respect.
Yes, I'm aware the manual for Sun on a Stick is a user-unfriendly text document, but my excuse is that it's five years old. My better manual design shows with The Underground. There isn't one. I decided to leave it to the player to decide what the goal is. Providing a manual would have compromised the game's design. Viewed in that light, it becomes rather obvious that a manual is a definite part of the game it is attached to. As such, it deserves to be considered in equal measure to other parts of the game.
24.3.10
He brings out this old game called Moonbase Commander and says "Let's Play!" and I'm like "What the?"
Recently, it was announced that Microsoft would drop dedicated support for multiplayer on the original XBox. This doesn't affect me in the slightest, but it does make me wonder how long a game which is designed for multiplayer can last.
I have a computer on which I can put old dos games. I love some of those games, such as Master of Orion 1, various Infocom games, the Commander Keen series, and I've been wanting to try Elite sometime. These games are really old, but with the right equipment or an emulator, you can still play them the way (or close to the way) they were meant to be played. When something like Call of Duty 4 becomes old and people stop playing it, it will be difficult to play the multiplayer component without making a special gathering for it. Similarly, someday there will be no one around who can play Street Fighter 2 (or whatever is the best version of SF2) to the same level as those crazy pros who know all the combos and the tips and tricks and so on.
And you can forget about MMOs.
Jason Rohrer made a game called Between. It required the participation of a random player on the internet. I tried the game, starting as any other player by waiting for a partner. This took over an hour of waiting at a black screen. Finally, the player arrives and we start. You can never meet the other player, but I could see the effects of what they did. It was pretty cool, and I attempted to work together with them to fulfil a goal. They, it seems, got bored really quickly by such an arty game, and after a while I realised that they had left, leaving me with a task impossible to finish alone. I'm sure it was a good game, but I guess I'll never know.
Right now, I'm making two multiplayer games. One offline and one online. I can't help but wonder how they'll hold up. I guess it would be a good idea to create some AI for them, as they are much more competitive than arty. It will be interesting, because I've never made complex, player-like AI before, and these games are both rather unlike the rest of the games in their genres (RTS and fighting). I suppose their closest game relatives are Defcon and Scissor Paper Rock.
I guess I don't play many multiplayer games, and I never play MMOs, so I wonder if my worries are founded. I just want people to play my games.
By the way, Moonbase Commander is awesome.
I have a computer on which I can put old dos games. I love some of those games, such as Master of Orion 1, various Infocom games, the Commander Keen series, and I've been wanting to try Elite sometime. These games are really old, but with the right equipment or an emulator, you can still play them the way (or close to the way) they were meant to be played. When something like Call of Duty 4 becomes old and people stop playing it, it will be difficult to play the multiplayer component without making a special gathering for it. Similarly, someday there will be no one around who can play Street Fighter 2 (or whatever is the best version of SF2) to the same level as those crazy pros who know all the combos and the tips and tricks and so on.
And you can forget about MMOs.
Jason Rohrer made a game called Between. It required the participation of a random player on the internet. I tried the game, starting as any other player by waiting for a partner. This took over an hour of waiting at a black screen. Finally, the player arrives and we start. You can never meet the other player, but I could see the effects of what they did. It was pretty cool, and I attempted to work together with them to fulfil a goal. They, it seems, got bored really quickly by such an arty game, and after a while I realised that they had left, leaving me with a task impossible to finish alone. I'm sure it was a good game, but I guess I'll never know.
Right now, I'm making two multiplayer games. One offline and one online. I can't help but wonder how they'll hold up. I guess it would be a good idea to create some AI for them, as they are much more competitive than arty. It will be interesting, because I've never made complex, player-like AI before, and these games are both rather unlike the rest of the games in their genres (RTS and fighting). I suppose their closest game relatives are Defcon and Scissor Paper Rock.
I guess I don't play many multiplayer games, and I never play MMOs, so I wonder if my worries are founded. I just want people to play my games.
By the way, Moonbase Commander is awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
