When you learn to drive a car, you start all nervous on your L plates. You play it safe, ask lots of questions, and drive well under the speed limit by accident. Then you get your P plates (at least, this is how it works in Australia). All of a sudden, you have no supervisor, a higher maximum speed limit, and previously unknown independence. You gain confidence, start to push boundaries, show off a lot, and generally think you're unbeatable.
Then something happens. Maybe a close call, maybe a crash. Maybe just further general experience.
It may not even directly happen to you, but for whatever reason, you suddenly realise you are far more inexperienced than you thought. You slow down, you take your time, you accept that you never stop learning. You are humbled, and what you do next can either broaden your horizons, or close them off forever (in this field, anyway).
I have recently been given some programming code by people who are professionals. I can follow it, even though it's an unfamiliar language, and I'm proud of that fact. However, I can also see a level of professionalism in their work that I have yet to attain. I have been programming, almost entirely self-taught, for over ten years. But, until now, I have never really seen how a professional does it. I am humbled, I realise I have far more to learn than I thought, even after so long. What will I do about it? If I'm serious about programming as a career, I need to use this as a spring-board for my education. I could let it depress me, but then I'd have nothing left. So my only choice is to improve.
And I actually feel pretty good about it.
30.10.10
Whatever you do, Don't Die.
I have, just now, released a new game. Entitled "Don't Die", this is an epic tale of a red ball with a face that can throw flying robots at each other!
Ok, it's an arcade-like game, not an epic tale. But there's nothing wrong with that. :)
Don't Die is a score-based game. Leap upon and grab the robots, then throw them at each other to cause chain reactions of robots knocking each other out of the sky! You can wall jump as much as you like, but you have a limited supply of mid-air jumps, which is boosted for every robot you kill. There are a number of different ways to kill robots, each adding it's own multiplier to your potential score. Landing will add your potential score to your total, but also reset your multipliers. So, for the really big scores, you will have to try to stay airborne for as long as possible. But beware, getting hurt will halve each and every multiplier, devastating your potential score.
Also, there's no dark secret in this game. Nope, none here.
Just, don't die...
Download here.
If you have any feedback, I'd love to hear it. Have fun. :)
14.10.10
Graphics does not not equal gameplay.
(yes, there are two "not"s there)
The most obvious change is when something becomes visible or invisible. If you can see something, you can react to it. If you can't, you have to either rely on clues around it or on guesswork. A similar-yet-different change occurs when the graphical shape of something does not match its hitbox. While hitboxes of complex characters rarely match their shape, and we are used to this, slight adjustments to hitboxes of less-complex objects can mean the difference between frustration and joy. One example that comes to mind is the awesome one-button game Canabalt. The hitboxes for the buildings were just a little bit longer than the buildings themselves, giving a slight, but welcome, benefit-of-the-doubt effect on the part of the game when you just missed a jump.
This is not the difficulty I'm having, however. (Actually, I have this one enemy with its hitbox in a really bizarre location to get it to work properly, but that's not a problem anymore.)
There is the oft-discussed topic of character silhouettes in games. If you have a collection of common characters in a game where rapid identification is key, you can check if they are visually distinct enough by reducing them to just a box with sticks for arms and legs, and another box for the head, and give them their most basic colours from their textures. If you can still identify them easily enough, then you're on the right track (probably because this is what they'll look like when they're far away on a screen).
Thing is, the background is also part of this. You may be able to easily identify six different colourful characters on the white background of paper, but it will be harder in a busy festival. Or floating in a psychedelic, trippy void-thing with fireworks.
Also important, and probably a reason you often see a character wearing the same clothes every day (unless they're all similar or the player is either notified or is the cause of the change) is that if you change the clothes of a character, or worse, change what something looks like entirely, the player has a little trouble keeping up. Be fair, the longest games run into a hundred hours (excluding grand strategy games and the like which can go nearly forever), which isn't really much time to go from being new to a game, to highly skilled, to never playing it again. If the player has been fighting robots, and suddenly they are not robots (and you have not made the change explicitly clear), the player is going to feel confused at first, and when they figure out what's going on, they'll just think the developer is lazy for not changing the gameplay too.
So the thing I'm having to carefully consider at the moment, whenever I want the background or foreground to change, is whether it makes the scene too busy, thereby making it harder to identify the important elements of the game. Similarly, some gameplay elements are going to visibly change, so I have to make it clear that they are changing, otherwise there'll be problems playing it.
(Incidentally, I'm actually writing this post because doing the graphics is getting very tedious, and I need to give my brain a little shake before going back to it).
11.8.10
Redesign: Mirror's Edge
When you give a game to testers, you have to be critical about the feedback you receive. They aren’t programmers, nor game designers (probably). So what they perceive to be, for example, a problem in one area is actually a side effect of another problem elsewhere.
Sometimes, I like to look at a game I enjoyed, but thought could be better, and carefully analyse why it didn’t work. One of my favourite games to do this with is Mirror’s Edge, because so many people* seemed to believe the controls were a problem, when I think the real issue lies elsewhere.
*No research, I just remember some reviews and people talking about it.
Level Design
I seem to remember that someone more specifically said that the controls did not fit the level design. To me, this sounds as bad as saying that we’ll make the graphics, and build the game around it. Or we’ll write the story and make the gameplay fit that. This is ok, because they aren’t game designers, but in reality, the levels are made to fit the controls. When it becomes awkward to move around a level, the level is often at fault. Sure, the controls can be poorly made and still finalized, but if you are late enough in production that you are making the levels that will appear in the game, you don’t want to mess with the controls, because that will mean redoing many of the maps, which, if you have a deadline, is a great way to get sub-par level design. Since the levels must support the controls, you must be able to detect weaknesses and try to avoid them, if possible. If it’s not possible, then the controls should be adjusted earlier.
If you want to be a level designer, and you haven’t played Half-Life 2, go play it. The level design is superb. Particularly, the skill of their designer(s?) to draw your attention to where they want you to look is admirable. For example, they want you to see an airborne vehicle crash-land, so they put an enemy with a weak weapon in a spot that he can’t reach you from, which happens to be the direction the vehicle crashes from. Sure, he’s no danger, but he gets your attention. In rooms with obstacles, you can often see, and recognise (important bit!), the goal as soon as you enter, even if you don’t yet know there’s a puzzle in the way.
Mirror’s Edge, on the other hand, has very little skill at this. I distinctly remember a room which you fall into, which is around 4x4 meters, with a little passage to a 1x1m room, and even in this tiny area, I remained stuck for almost twenty minutes. I played both the PC and X360 versions of the game, and this room frustrated me both times. You can tell a room is badly designed when you enter it again a few days after solving it the first time, and you get stuck once again. Tip to the ME level designer: nobody ever looks up without a prompt or a hint! There were many other instances that failed to guide the player, and caused me to get stuck on both playthroughs. I suspect they were more concerned with the pretty than the functional.
Controls
That all said, there were a couple of issues with the controls, but only one was really bad at all. That one isn’t even really anything to do with the controls themselves. It’s the problem of precision jumping when you can’t see (or otherwise detect) your feet. Precision jumping is hard enough in third-person games, but in first-person, it’s a nightmare. When you game is based around parkour and freerunning (two different things, by the way, not many people seem to realise) you want to solve this problem effectively. I present two ideas off the top of my head:
1) Use Zelda style jumping. In the 3D Zelda games, jumping was automatic. Just run at an edge and Link would jump at the best moment to reach the furthest. This matches, more or less, how real people jump from an edge. You run, so that you touch (or nearly touch) the edge with your foot, then leap. Many of the mental processes are automatic. To fit with the ME control scheme, let’s say that sliding (crouch button) will let you drop without jumping, and going slowly will let you hang from the edge. The jump button will still function for when there is no edge. Obviously testing is in order before finalization.
2) Add some visual indicator to the HUD, showing how close you are to the edge. This one is a little distasteful, because they did such a good job of removing all other HUD elements (except the timer in time trial, and I found the centre dot annoying, even as I recognized that some people may need it. Glad that was optional). Either an indicator showing general “edge-closeness” or an overlayed, rotating minimap-like thing (except expanded, so that it only appears when you are near an edge). This would allow you an additional top-down view, showing you what your first-person view could not, especially if the centre dot is given the dual use of showing your position too.
Actually, the problem was slightly removed for the PC version, as with a mouse, you can much more easily quickly look down. It’s not ideal, but I had more fun with the PC version in general. In fact, the WASD style was very good for this game, considering that you did not need the control flexibility of a control-stick (forwards to go, and that’s mostly it). The mouse also gave more flexibility than a control stick for something that required it. (I have a rant about how silly direct porting from WASD+mouse to two control-sticks is, but that’s for another time)
Another problem was that, trying to look around when hanging from something was too slow with the X360 control-stick. This can easily be solved by making the camera direction map to the control stick directly when hanging. Actually telling the player you can use the rotate-180 button to look around could also help, because some people didn’t realise this.
Finally, ME could have taken a cue from Trackmania in regards to failure. There was a dedicated button for restarting, and it worked instantly. I imagine adding that feature to ME would take a bit of work; loading may be an issue, and every other object would have to reset, but a good result would go a long way to improving the experience, as anyone who fell from a great height could tell (falling, falling, falling, falling, thud, die, slow fade out, loading screen, fade in, is a great way to break the pace of a game, especially one built around a feeling of flow).
Combat
I wonder how many people would have preferred the game without that. It wasn’t actually bad; the system itself made sense, as the protagonist wasn’t good at fighting. The problem was when they forced it upon you. Giving someone with no weapons (and little skill with them anyway) a fight against multiple shotguns, is a great way to frustrate them. It should have been an option at all times.
Actually, I suspect the only reason why there was combat at all is the same reason they put boss fights in stealth games. They (whoever “they” are in this case) might have thought that the game would not sell if there wasn’t combat. Maybe the poor, mindless gamers won’t be able to cope if a game is a little bit different from normal. Either that, or it was there entirely because of the story. I know that many people will disagree with me, but I think a story should be created to fit the gameplay, not the other way around. You’re selling interactivity, not story. The point of a game is the interactive experience, and the story should support that. If not, you’ll be making bad design decisions because otherwise the story won’t make sense, oh no!
Commercial soundtrack
The final problem I found with Mirror’s Edge was actually with the soundtrack you can buy of it. I wasn’t going to mention this, but I’m here now. If people like the music of a game, and you release a soundtrack, make sure the soundtrack is of the music in the game! You’d think this was simple, but no. For example, I was really disappointed with the Rez one, because my favourite music had been remixed, and wasn’t as good. ME goes worse. The game had 11 remixes of the same tune, which was actually fine because, while not vastly different, they at least appeared different enough (or more specifically, the game had only the parts that were different). The soundtrack had the entire version of each remix, revealing that they were not, in fact, different enough. That starts to get repetitive on its own, but every song had exactly the same singing! And you get so sick of it! The soundtrack was not worth it.
In the end, though, Mirror’s Edge was a good game with lots of potential. It just made a few too many mistakes that weren’t picked up on or solved. I kinda hope there’s a sequel, and that the controls remain largely the same.
Edit: What a coincidence. A couple of days after writing this post, I won Mirror's Edge for PC. It occurred to me that, now that I have my own copy, maybe I can try to mod in my ideas or something. Not that I've ever modded before. Must investigate. Anyway, I tried out some user-made levels, and it just hit home that, no matter how poorly I think the official levels seemed to be designed, they still show a level of expertise that is hidden by the fact that all the levels were made by the same people. The fan-made levels bring forth the aforementioned expertise in comparison, as all of them are exercises in frustration. Common problems include tiny platforms that are hard to stay on because of momentum, situations in which one fall will send you far back to the beginning (exasperated by the fact that most don't have checkpoints), and a general failure to direct the player as to where to go next. That last one wouldn't be a problem if the levels weren't linear, but they are.
Speaking of which, one thing I find odd about Mirror's Edge is that it is so linear for something based on parkour, which is so non-linear. The actual destination is often far less important in real life. Storywise, it makes sense, though. Just like how Half-Life 2 wouldn't be better non-linear. I saw a vote on this forum on what should be in ME2, and "Free Roam" was at the top. Which is odd, because nobody in the community is making a free roam level... Must be difficult to do. If you don't want your level to be boring, you need some kind of challenge or goal, but that defeats the purpose of free-roam in a game about movement. Unless the level is designed with multiplayer in mind... Sorry, I'm just think out loud now...
Sometimes, I like to look at a game I enjoyed, but thought could be better, and carefully analyse why it didn’t work. One of my favourite games to do this with is Mirror’s Edge, because so many people* seemed to believe the controls were a problem, when I think the real issue lies elsewhere.
*No research, I just remember some reviews and people talking about it.
Level Design
I seem to remember that someone more specifically said that the controls did not fit the level design. To me, this sounds as bad as saying that we’ll make the graphics, and build the game around it. Or we’ll write the story and make the gameplay fit that. This is ok, because they aren’t game designers, but in reality, the levels are made to fit the controls. When it becomes awkward to move around a level, the level is often at fault. Sure, the controls can be poorly made and still finalized, but if you are late enough in production that you are making the levels that will appear in the game, you don’t want to mess with the controls, because that will mean redoing many of the maps, which, if you have a deadline, is a great way to get sub-par level design. Since the levels must support the controls, you must be able to detect weaknesses and try to avoid them, if possible. If it’s not possible, then the controls should be adjusted earlier.
If you want to be a level designer, and you haven’t played Half-Life 2, go play it. The level design is superb. Particularly, the skill of their designer(s?) to draw your attention to where they want you to look is admirable. For example, they want you to see an airborne vehicle crash-land, so they put an enemy with a weak weapon in a spot that he can’t reach you from, which happens to be the direction the vehicle crashes from. Sure, he’s no danger, but he gets your attention. In rooms with obstacles, you can often see, and recognise (important bit!), the goal as soon as you enter, even if you don’t yet know there’s a puzzle in the way.
Mirror’s Edge, on the other hand, has very little skill at this. I distinctly remember a room which you fall into, which is around 4x4 meters, with a little passage to a 1x1m room, and even in this tiny area, I remained stuck for almost twenty minutes. I played both the PC and X360 versions of the game, and this room frustrated me both times. You can tell a room is badly designed when you enter it again a few days after solving it the first time, and you get stuck once again. Tip to the ME level designer: nobody ever looks up without a prompt or a hint! There were many other instances that failed to guide the player, and caused me to get stuck on both playthroughs. I suspect they were more concerned with the pretty than the functional.
Controls
That all said, there were a couple of issues with the controls, but only one was really bad at all. That one isn’t even really anything to do with the controls themselves. It’s the problem of precision jumping when you can’t see (or otherwise detect) your feet. Precision jumping is hard enough in third-person games, but in first-person, it’s a nightmare. When you game is based around parkour and freerunning (two different things, by the way, not many people seem to realise) you want to solve this problem effectively. I present two ideas off the top of my head:
1) Use Zelda style jumping. In the 3D Zelda games, jumping was automatic. Just run at an edge and Link would jump at the best moment to reach the furthest. This matches, more or less, how real people jump from an edge. You run, so that you touch (or nearly touch) the edge with your foot, then leap. Many of the mental processes are automatic. To fit with the ME control scheme, let’s say that sliding (crouch button) will let you drop without jumping, and going slowly will let you hang from the edge. The jump button will still function for when there is no edge. Obviously testing is in order before finalization.
2) Add some visual indicator to the HUD, showing how close you are to the edge. This one is a little distasteful, because they did such a good job of removing all other HUD elements (except the timer in time trial, and I found the centre dot annoying, even as I recognized that some people may need it. Glad that was optional). Either an indicator showing general “edge-closeness” or an overlayed, rotating minimap-like thing (except expanded, so that it only appears when you are near an edge). This would allow you an additional top-down view, showing you what your first-person view could not, especially if the centre dot is given the dual use of showing your position too.
Actually, the problem was slightly removed for the PC version, as with a mouse, you can much more easily quickly look down. It’s not ideal, but I had more fun with the PC version in general. In fact, the WASD style was very good for this game, considering that you did not need the control flexibility of a control-stick (forwards to go, and that’s mostly it). The mouse also gave more flexibility than a control stick for something that required it. (I have a rant about how silly direct porting from WASD+mouse to two control-sticks is, but that’s for another time)
Another problem was that, trying to look around when hanging from something was too slow with the X360 control-stick. This can easily be solved by making the camera direction map to the control stick directly when hanging. Actually telling the player you can use the rotate-180 button to look around could also help, because some people didn’t realise this.
Finally, ME could have taken a cue from Trackmania in regards to failure. There was a dedicated button for restarting, and it worked instantly. I imagine adding that feature to ME would take a bit of work; loading may be an issue, and every other object would have to reset, but a good result would go a long way to improving the experience, as anyone who fell from a great height could tell (falling, falling, falling, falling, thud, die, slow fade out, loading screen, fade in, is a great way to break the pace of a game, especially one built around a feeling of flow).
Combat
I wonder how many people would have preferred the game without that. It wasn’t actually bad; the system itself made sense, as the protagonist wasn’t good at fighting. The problem was when they forced it upon you. Giving someone with no weapons (and little skill with them anyway) a fight against multiple shotguns, is a great way to frustrate them. It should have been an option at all times.
Actually, I suspect the only reason why there was combat at all is the same reason they put boss fights in stealth games. They (whoever “they” are in this case) might have thought that the game would not sell if there wasn’t combat. Maybe the poor, mindless gamers won’t be able to cope if a game is a little bit different from normal. Either that, or it was there entirely because of the story. I know that many people will disagree with me, but I think a story should be created to fit the gameplay, not the other way around. You’re selling interactivity, not story. The point of a game is the interactive experience, and the story should support that. If not, you’ll be making bad design decisions because otherwise the story won’t make sense, oh no!
Commercial soundtrack
The final problem I found with Mirror’s Edge was actually with the soundtrack you can buy of it. I wasn’t going to mention this, but I’m here now. If people like the music of a game, and you release a soundtrack, make sure the soundtrack is of the music in the game! You’d think this was simple, but no. For example, I was really disappointed with the Rez one, because my favourite music had been remixed, and wasn’t as good. ME goes worse. The game had 11 remixes of the same tune, which was actually fine because, while not vastly different, they at least appeared different enough (or more specifically, the game had only the parts that were different). The soundtrack had the entire version of each remix, revealing that they were not, in fact, different enough. That starts to get repetitive on its own, but every song had exactly the same singing! And you get so sick of it! The soundtrack was not worth it.
In the end, though, Mirror’s Edge was a good game with lots of potential. It just made a few too many mistakes that weren’t picked up on or solved. I kinda hope there’s a sequel, and that the controls remain largely the same.
Edit: What a coincidence. A couple of days after writing this post, I won Mirror's Edge for PC. It occurred to me that, now that I have my own copy, maybe I can try to mod in my ideas or something. Not that I've ever modded before. Must investigate. Anyway, I tried out some user-made levels, and it just hit home that, no matter how poorly I think the official levels seemed to be designed, they still show a level of expertise that is hidden by the fact that all the levels were made by the same people. The fan-made levels bring forth the aforementioned expertise in comparison, as all of them are exercises in frustration. Common problems include tiny platforms that are hard to stay on because of momentum, situations in which one fall will send you far back to the beginning (exasperated by the fact that most don't have checkpoints), and a general failure to direct the player as to where to go next. That last one wouldn't be a problem if the levels weren't linear, but they are.
Speaking of which, one thing I find odd about Mirror's Edge is that it is so linear for something based on parkour, which is so non-linear. The actual destination is often far less important in real life. Storywise, it makes sense, though. Just like how Half-Life 2 wouldn't be better non-linear. I saw a vote on this forum on what should be in ME2, and "Free Roam" was at the top. Which is odd, because nobody in the community is making a free roam level... Must be difficult to do. If you don't want your level to be boring, you need some kind of challenge or goal, but that defeats the purpose of free-roam in a game about movement. Unless the level is designed with multiplayer in mind... Sorry, I'm just think out loud now...
27.7.10
Two sides of the same coin. Inside and outside.
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!)
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.
19.2.10
I didn't win. That means you do!
Well, it appears that I did not win a spot in GammaIV. But that means I can release the final version of the game! This makes me feel better, as I can now ignore it an go on to better things.
On the other hand, if you have any feedback, no matter how vague or small, I would be really pleased to hear from you, either by email, or by comment right here on this very page!
The Underground - Download
(Sorry, it's still Divshare. I'm still slowly investigating alternatives. You know, Google Code doesn't have an about page. That makes things difficult.)
I have not said anything about the game itself. That is intentional. ;)
On the other hand, if you have any feedback, no matter how vague or small, I would be really pleased to hear from you, either by email, or by comment right here on this very page!
The Underground - Download
(Sorry, it's still Divshare. I'm still slowly investigating alternatives. You know, Google Code doesn't have an about page. That makes things difficult.)
I have not said anything about the game itself. That is intentional. ;)
2.2.10
One Hundred and Fifty Four!
So, GammaIV closed recently. 154 games were submitted. 154! And they plan on choosing 5 to 7 games to be presented. That won't be me, but you never really know. I will release a public version of The Underground after GDC.
In the meantime, I've been attempting to make a space combat game involving the limitations of light-speed on communication. Not sure if anything will come of it, but it'll probably be a first of it's kind.
In the meantime, I've been attempting to make a space combat game involving the limitations of light-speed on communication. Not sure if anything will come of it, but it'll probably be a first of it's kind.
4.1.10
Something early! And old.
I have an old game that I think is decent enough to share. And it means other people can play one of my games a little early! I had to touch it up a bit. My standards and understanding have both improved (or at least changed) since 2005 or whenever I made the game. The manual was awful, so I completely rewrote that.
The game is a bizzare game based around gravity and far removed control.
Here it is: Sun on a Stick.
Hmm... I think I need a new place to put my files. Downloading asks for a wait of a few seconds.
The game is a bizzare game based around gravity and far removed control.
Here it is: Sun on a Stick.
Hmm... I think I need a new place to put my files. Downloading asks for a wait of a few seconds.
3.1.10
Hmmm... what next?
Well, I finished The Underground (the version for GammaIV anyway. I plan on releasing a slightly different version after the event). I actually did so a while ago now, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't going to let anyone play yet.
And no one reads the blog yet. I think I shouldn't advertise this blog till I actually get something for people to play.
I wonder what I should do next. I have a number of ideas, but a competition with guidelines seems to be a good way of getting me to settle on something. Until I find one, though, I will probably experiment till I find something I like. Or maybe I'll find a small group of enthusiastic testers in close proximity to help me test the multiplayer on my samurai game. Or maybe I'll make a nice graphic for the top of this blog. Make it more professional.
The Underground - GammaIV version finished. Full version to come.
And no one reads the blog yet. I think I shouldn't advertise this blog till I actually get something for people to play.
I wonder what I should do next. I have a number of ideas, but a competition with guidelines seems to be a good way of getting me to settle on something. Until I find one, though, I will probably experiment till I find something I like. Or maybe I'll find a small group of enthusiastic testers in close proximity to help me test the multiplayer on my samurai game. Or maybe I'll make a nice graphic for the top of this blog. Make it more professional.
The Underground - GammaIV version finished. Full version to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
