First order of business is that Oli Clarke Smith Presents an Oli Clarke Smith Game: Rogue Warrior has been featured on a podcast! This comes courtesy of Idle Thumbs and the discussion starts about 30 minutes in.
Hit it up here.
Thanks to James for the hook up.
Myself and Ben have done another discussion. This may be the last one if Ben doesn't learn how to fucking type. God gave us capital letters and punctuation for a reason. This one is about DLC and specifically value perception of downloadable content.
As always, if any of you want to be involved with these, let me know. Ben and I have got ideas for a more quick fire version of this that would be suitable for multiple people to join in with. I also crave feedback on these.
Plans for a podcast are afoot as one of my hetero life mates (in this case Phil) has offered to produce for me and also do a theme tune.
Enjoy!
Chopemon says:
Welcome to the second discussion. I'm Oli Clarke Smith and with me again is...
Ben says:
Benjamin R. H. Gouldstone
Chopemon says:
This week we're going to hit up the topic of DLC and some of the recent issues that have come about because of it.
First up is attaching value to content. The recent Resident Evil 5 versus pack caused a bit of an internet storm when two new game modes clocked in at 400 MS points for a 2 meg file with many people believing it was an unlock key. I think people reacted badly to it because of the file size even though it was not and unlock. How do you feel about paying for just code and no new levels or characters?
Ben says:
I wasn't best pleased to be honest
I got the multiplayer pack, and I knew what I was getting for my money. The problem with it, is it feels like you are being ripped off even though it isn’t an unlock code. People realise that that extra 2 meg of code would have fit on and should have been on the disk anyway.
As far as pricing goes, why should we be getting charged for something we should be entitled to?
Chopemon says:
How are we entitled to it? It is Capcom's product, they can sell it to us as they like. Their excuse is that it was created outside of the main game. As you know, there is usually a fair amount of time between a game hitting beta and it getting released. It could well have been done in that time. Also, in this instance, Capcom games tend to retail at a slightly lower price point than other games so maybe they felt that they could charge for an optional extra mode?
Ben says:
I would agree, if the Mercs mode wasn’t in there. This might sound strange, but I would have been happier paying the price I did for the original game without Mercs mode, then paying more to download it as an add-on with the multiplayer included. The reason is the cost doesn’t reflect the content. In terms of value of content, often DLC feels rather wayward in pricing.
For example Psychonauts on classics is 1200 points (I think) and the 2 meg of code for Resi 5 was 400, so far as value for money is concerned, it just doesn’t feel right.
What do you think?
Chopemon says:
Playing devil's advocate on this, your perceived value of it doesn't feel right. Your Doublefine boner aside, pricing subjective experiences is always going to be hard. For some people the value of Resi 5 will out weigh the cost of a full game. I am happy to pay any amount of money for something that I am going to enjoy. This does lead on to the subject of unlock keys though and I'll admit that after hating the Soul Calibur 4 bullshit, I got some of the Street Fighter costume packs. I was happy to pay for them despite them being unlocks. The sad fact is that unlocks are the only way to sell online costumes though. MS don't allow you to patch in content so it has to already be on the disk.
It hurts but Cammy's ass helped me get over it.
Ben says:
Well I can understand that, it gave me my Doublefine boner as you mentioned
It hurts because it can be seen as the problem of the dev or MS, its either the dev’s fault for locking the content, or MS' for not allowing the patching. The non patching front can be seen as a plus, because it stops devs releasing for the most part broken and unfinished games, but that stops as you said content being patched "in".
I think sometimes the value of the content is taken too much from the effort put in by the dev not the value to the consumer if that makes sense?
What was stopping that Soul Calibur costume rubbish from being a 10 point download?
Chopemon says:
You can still release broken games (Gears of War 2) and patch code but because there is no built in hard drive you are not allowed to patch content.
You can't do 10 point downloads, MS have several pricing tiers. I think the problem is that DLC is still a fairly new content and people aren't entirely used to paying for digital content. That doesn't excuse the feeling of being ripped off by withheld content. I recently paid 1600 points for The Lost and Damned and despite that being relatively expensive for content it still felt completely worth it. What's the best piece of DLC you've grabbed?
Ben says:
Specifically on Xbox?
Chopemon says:
Give me an Xbox one but anything else that you've had would be cool.
Ben says:
I've gotta say lost and damned, because it made me appreciate GTA 4 again. I think that can be a good indicator of really strong DLC, it makes you want to play the game again. At no point playing lost and damned did I feel like it was lacking, it was polished, it played well and the feeling it gave you was strong like GTA 4, but different enough to make it new.
Other than that it would have to be Portal over steam, even though I aced it in pretty much 1 lunch hour
What about you, what was your best?
Chopemon says:
Lost and Damned is obviously amazing but outside of that the Rainbow Six Vegas and GRAW DLC has been amazing. I love those games and Ubisoft did a great job of supporting them. Some friends and I have recently been playing around with the Burnout Paradise DLC and that has been wonderfully supported. Which allows me to segue into release windows.
How important do you think DLC timing is? Too close to the game's release and you get the Resi 5 problem and too late and you get the Saints Row 2 content. In the transient world of gaming people have moved on from SR2 and I don't think it's doing well.
Ben says:
It’s strange you should mention Saints Row 2, because for me, recently chatting with my friends on live, there has been a new buzz going around. I don’t know if it’s the DLC, or if its people being tired of brown games but its there. But that said, timing is key. Taking the Resi 5 angle, if that same DLC would have come out 2 months from now, for the same price, I would happily get it.
I think lost and damned hit the nail on the head, but that’s off the back of a successful game, Saints Row 2 did ok, but it was sent to die against GTA 4, so it started bad and could only get worse. With all the furore around the episodic GTA 4 content, it’s no wonder it got lost to the ether.
Something that adds to a game’s longevity is great, but it has to come at the right time. After 4 weeks of GTA 4, clawing to the end, I’m ready for a rest. Rockstar gave that to the consumer and the lapped it up
Chopemon says:
That's like saying Burnout was sent to die after Forza, SR and GTA are very different games. I've regularly kept up with the Halo 3 DLC but not the Call of Duty or Gears DLC because very few of my friends play those online.
Some games just work really well with DLC and others don't. What would you like to see happening more with DLC?
Ben says:
The pricing reflecting the content, but from the angle of the people paying for it. The Microsoft brackets aren’t flexible enough to accommodate everything and as far as I know there is no regulation of pricing outside of the developer’s discretion. I think the key phrase is value for money, if I’m paying the equivalent cost of 30% of the original game; I want the content to reflect that cost
What do you think the next logical step is with DLC, so far as regulating content and pricing?
Chopemon says:
MS advise on pricing but have brackets you have to fall in with. I'm hoping that consumers vote with their wallets and we see content reflecting this. I'd like to see new models emerge as well. Ubisoft demoed DLC with their first Naruto game and that was pretty rad. I want stuff that revitalises a game and not have it focus so much on multiplayer. I know multiplayer is cheaper than single player but stuff like the Prince of Persia and Mirror's Edge content would be really good.
Ben says:
I have to agree, things like new weapons. Thinking about it, what they did with the re-releases with the original Resi would be interesting as DLC. The original game "re imagined" with puzzles swapped round and different camera angles. I know it’s a simplistic definition, but that sort of thing gives a game new life.
I play a lot of single player games and I almost prefer it, I want to get lost in the game and have it feel special for me alone. Anything that can give me that experience again or at least extend it cant be a bad thing. Map packs and new perks are great, but it’s not always something I want
What about themes and gamer pictures, what's your take on them?
Chopemon says:
I occasionally buy gamerpics but never themes. The trouble with gamerpics is that they are usually over priced and shit.
Ben says:
I think they are dying a death, with the new avatars, no one really wants them. I can’t think of 1 person other than you that has a gamerpic instead of an avatar shot because they are free
Chopemon says:
But soon they will charge for avatar clothing as well.
Ben says:
You can bet, but the systems already there. your face doesn’t change as much as your clothing does, but I don’t think its something that people are gonna go mad over. I think extra customisation options for themes might be a good idea. I have the premium sf4 theme, and the Chun Li image is on marketplace or something and for my main dash its Ryu’s ugly monkey face.
If I could swap it around, I would be much happier to pay for them.
The other thing is you don’t always know what you’re really getting.
There needs to be images, videos anything to illustrate better what DLC really is and what you are getting. I've been let down too many times, getting something, and it not being anything I really wanted
Chopemon says:
On that rather depressing note we'll wrap this up. There have been some good points raised, thanks very much Ben.
Ben says:
Thank you Oli, it’s been a pleasure.
Thursday 30 April 2009
Monday 27 April 2009
Sharkman of the Delta
The game I'm working on got announced today. Rogue Warrior is a first/third person cover shooter based on Richard Marcinko. Richard Marcinko is a famed Navy SEAL who could not only beat up Chuck Norris but he'd rip his fucking arms off.
Demo Dick is about as maverick as it gets and he pissed off the American army so much they threw him out despite being one of the best soldier they ever had. He then formed Red Cell, a group designed to test military defenses. He proceeded to break into Air Force One and inspire Dead Cell from MGS2. I like Marcinko because he is the action hero incarnate but without bullshit stunts.
One of the highlights of the project came the other day when I was asked to write some script for Mickey Rourke. Mickey fucking Rourke. He will be reading the script I wrote. How fucking incredible is that? I assume I'll be getting blown at Hollywood parties soon.
The game has been great to work on and I want to peep you a link and screens.
Preview at Eurogamer.
Wednesday 22 April 2009
Game Discussion ver 1.0
Last week I teased a something exciting, something I had cooking. Here it is.
I am a big fan of listening to discussions so I decided to start hosting these discussions. This is a trial run. We all have to begin somewhere.
I enlisted my comrade Ben to talk about a subject over MSN. The following text is largely unedited; I tidied up some of my spelling and Ben's punctuation (full stops aren't something that happen to other people) but that's about it. We could have gone on for longer but I'm very aware of internet attention spans so we cut it short. We are going to do at least one more as just the two of us but I really want to open it up to more people.
If you want to take part in one of these please let me know. If you have any feedback about length, quality or content let me know.
Chopemon says:
Ok, this is the first of a hopefully successful discussion roundtable with developers about game issues. I am Oli Clarke Smith aka Chopemon and today we're going to be hitting up the subject of demos. With me is...
Ben says:
Ben Gouldstone, aka Yaw Momma on Xbox Live.
Chopemon says:
Ben and I have worked together in the scary world of development and to start we're going to talk about how to demo 60 seconds of fun in a demo. Ben, why don't you take it away.
Ben says:
well from my perspective, when i start up a demo the first thing I want to see is gameplay
too many times I've downloaded something and I'm barraged with menus and options and lots of stuff I don't need to see. In terms of demos, my personal opinion is that it should send the player right into the thick of it, if you are going to get a punter to buy the game, do it with the experience of playing the game, nothing else. What do you think?
Chopemon says:
I think the problem a lot of demos have is that they barrage the player with a crazy loading screen with insane controls from the start. That is off putting to a lot of people. I see it, decide that it is mostly nonsense and just try to pick it up as I play.
Then there's usually a cutscene. Cutscenes are silly in demos.
I tend to skip them so I can experience the story in the full game. Then you are in the unique problem of demoing gameplay.
Ben says:
I agree, I can understand why some companies do use cutscenes in demos, they want to set the scene for the gamer so they don't just feel dumped in the deep end. I think the problem stems from developers making demos from a developers perspective, not from the angle of the person who is going to play the game.
The average gamer doesn't care how much time a company puts into their cutscenes, mo cap or any of that stuff, if the game that follows it doesn't cut the mustard.
Chopemon says:
By demoing a cutscene you are placing some value on the cutscene, you are telling the player that this cutscene is a selling point of the game. Most games have a laughable story and cutscenes are generally poorly animated and rushed. Look at the Wheelman demo. That game is about driving fast and jumping between cars, not story.
There is almost no value in showing a games cutscenes. But maybe that is our perspective. As designers we only care about how it plays, not the fan-fic style story they are trying to tell.
Ben says:
I think one of the strongest recent demos was Resi 5. The reason it worked so well for me, was the fact that there was a small amount of exposition, so you understood what was going on, there is already a well established back story with the franchise, so you know what to expect and it let you play the game without stopping you to explain boring control schemes.
Gamers are smarter than a lot of developers realise, they know how most games work and can figure it out for themselves. I'm dreaming of a day when you fire up a demo for a racing game, and it starts you mid race doing 100mph and just says, sink or swim.
Chopemon says:
Nice point. Resi 5 worked because of the imagery. People react well to being surrounded by zombies. We know that situation and we know (kind of) what to do.
The Resi 5 demo did what Microsoft suggested a couple of years ago; demo the best 15 minutes, not the first 15 minutes. The Resi 5 demo is balls to the wall and shows the best bits of the combat and sells the mechanics of the game well. In comparison, it takes about an hour to get through the Too Human demo. Do a lot of people care enough to put that much time into a demo?
Ben says:
I didn't.
It almost killed me playing that. It makes you feel dumb. I think that's a crime a lot of demos suffer from, is a lack of active learning. Look at Burnout Paradise, you start the game and it tells you, this is a map, this is a car, this is a short cut, this is a road blah blah blah.
I loved it when you could play a game, and not know everything that was going to happen or everything that you could do. The Burnout Paradise demo just gave you everything and it put me off. Which is sad, because the full game is great if you miss all the tutorial stuff.
Chopemon says:
I agree. Developers haven't completely honed how to make a demo. It is hard though. How do you sell your game in a small amount of time whilst explaining the controls and providing a learning curve? Tutorials are boring and are normally badly done anyway but games have such complex control schemes that they are hard to just dump on the player. The only demo I can think of that got the balance between tutorial and freedom of play right was Crackdown.
Ben says:
You're right, the fun to be had from that game was the fun you found. The play it your way approach is great for demos, because there is no punishment, you aren't affecting high scores or ranks. I think the reason Crackdown worked so well as a demo, was that the best aspect, or at least the most addictive aspect of that game was free running.
The ability to leap as high as a sky scraper never got old, and that's why it worked, because the most fun part of the game was there from second 1 in the demo.
Chopemon says:
I want to ask, what would you say is your demo to purchase rate? Mine is pretty high. Regardless of me buying most games anyway, my purchases are often affirmed by a demo. Recently I was umming and ahhing about Red Faction Guerilla but the demo sold me on it.
Ben says:
I wouldn't say it was that high for me, there are few games that have really sold themselves to me based on a demo. Most of the time I know if I want to buy a game before I play the demo, the demo usually just confirms my thoughts. Sometimes it almost works the other way, warning me off something i didn't want
I can honestly say the last time I remember a demo selling me the game was Grim Fandango;
I played the demo and wanted to know more.
For me, Red Faction Guerilla put me off.
I'm very much into character development and narrative and plot in games. If done right I think they are just what a game needs to draw emotion from a player. I know its hard but it is possible. When i played the Red Faction demo, I thought, oh cool, you can smash everything.... now what? It just felt like same old same old.
To me anyway
Why did it excite you so much?
Chopemon says:
I guess I just how it appealed to the lowest sense of fun in videogames. I could blow stuff up and it looked real pretty. It was just mindless fun, a good fun sand box, playful experience. I tend to be like you, my decision to buy has been reaffirmed. I buy so many games that demos become a reassurance rather than a converter.
Did you used to pick up demo disk magazines before the rise of online demos?
Ben says:
Yeah I did, much more for PC than console though. I think it was just the range of available demos. I used to install all of them and then give each one 5 mins, if it didn't have me buy then I dumped it. I would even sometimes replay a demo as soon as I finished it because it drew me in so much.
I think part of it is the fact that we know so much about games that are going to come out these days there's no surprise any more.
Chopemon says:
I can't remember how many times I replayed the Starcraft demo mini campaign.
I think for us we already know what the game is but the vast majority of people often have no idea what a game is until they play a demo. We keep our ears pretty close to the ground and watch all the videos and read the previews. A lot of people don't. That's why I wonder if demos do enough to sell themselves.
Ben says:
You hit on it earlier, but don't you think timing in demos is sometimes dubious?
Like with the Too Human demo?
Way too long, where as some don't even let you get started.
The Mirrors Edge demo worked well for me length wise, but it was punishing, making you re-run sections over and over if you pressed a wrong button.
Chopemon says:
That was the game though. The game was brutal if you were 'bad' at it. The worst bit of that demo was the tutorial! I enjoy demos like Ninja Blade and FEAR where they do remix levels. The levels are chopped and changed so that you play the demo, enjoy some excellent buts but the levels in the game are still fresh and relatively unspoilt.
My last point for this topic is where do demos go in the future? Microsoft TRCs don't allow save games but the PS3 TRCs do. This allowed the orbs collected in the Ninja Gaiden Sigma demo to carry over to the full game. More linking of demos to games could be vital in the demo to purchase rate so they don't feel throw away. What would you like to see demos start doing?
Ben says:
I like the idea of linking demos to the released titles, some people might see it as a cheeky marketing scheme though. I think more than anything I want to see more trust in gamers, in terms of skill and intelligence. Let them work some things out for themselves, surprise them.
Chopemon says:
That is an excellent closing comment. I think this went pretty well for a first effort. Thanks a lot Ben, good to have you aboard for this.
Ben says:
Really enjoyed it, thanks for asking me.
I am a big fan of listening to discussions so I decided to start hosting these discussions. This is a trial run. We all have to begin somewhere.
I enlisted my comrade Ben to talk about a subject over MSN. The following text is largely unedited; I tidied up some of my spelling and Ben's punctuation (full stops aren't something that happen to other people) but that's about it. We could have gone on for longer but I'm very aware of internet attention spans so we cut it short. We are going to do at least one more as just the two of us but I really want to open it up to more people.
If you want to take part in one of these please let me know. If you have any feedback about length, quality or content let me know.
Chopemon says:
Ok, this is the first of a hopefully successful discussion roundtable with developers about game issues. I am Oli Clarke Smith aka Chopemon and today we're going to be hitting up the subject of demos. With me is...
Ben says:
Ben Gouldstone, aka Yaw Momma on Xbox Live.
Chopemon says:
Ben and I have worked together in the scary world of development and to start we're going to talk about how to demo 60 seconds of fun in a demo. Ben, why don't you take it away.
Ben says:
well from my perspective, when i start up a demo the first thing I want to see is gameplay
too many times I've downloaded something and I'm barraged with menus and options and lots of stuff I don't need to see. In terms of demos, my personal opinion is that it should send the player right into the thick of it, if you are going to get a punter to buy the game, do it with the experience of playing the game, nothing else. What do you think?
Chopemon says:
I think the problem a lot of demos have is that they barrage the player with a crazy loading screen with insane controls from the start. That is off putting to a lot of people. I see it, decide that it is mostly nonsense and just try to pick it up as I play.
Then there's usually a cutscene. Cutscenes are silly in demos.
I tend to skip them so I can experience the story in the full game. Then you are in the unique problem of demoing gameplay.
Ben says:
I agree, I can understand why some companies do use cutscenes in demos, they want to set the scene for the gamer so they don't just feel dumped in the deep end. I think the problem stems from developers making demos from a developers perspective, not from the angle of the person who is going to play the game.
The average gamer doesn't care how much time a company puts into their cutscenes, mo cap or any of that stuff, if the game that follows it doesn't cut the mustard.
Chopemon says:
By demoing a cutscene you are placing some value on the cutscene, you are telling the player that this cutscene is a selling point of the game. Most games have a laughable story and cutscenes are generally poorly animated and rushed. Look at the Wheelman demo. That game is about driving fast and jumping between cars, not story.
There is almost no value in showing a games cutscenes. But maybe that is our perspective. As designers we only care about how it plays, not the fan-fic style story they are trying to tell.
Ben says:
I think one of the strongest recent demos was Resi 5. The reason it worked so well for me, was the fact that there was a small amount of exposition, so you understood what was going on, there is already a well established back story with the franchise, so you know what to expect and it let you play the game without stopping you to explain boring control schemes.
Gamers are smarter than a lot of developers realise, they know how most games work and can figure it out for themselves. I'm dreaming of a day when you fire up a demo for a racing game, and it starts you mid race doing 100mph and just says, sink or swim.
Chopemon says:
Nice point. Resi 5 worked because of the imagery. People react well to being surrounded by zombies. We know that situation and we know (kind of) what to do.
The Resi 5 demo did what Microsoft suggested a couple of years ago; demo the best 15 minutes, not the first 15 minutes. The Resi 5 demo is balls to the wall and shows the best bits of the combat and sells the mechanics of the game well. In comparison, it takes about an hour to get through the Too Human demo. Do a lot of people care enough to put that much time into a demo?
Ben says:
I didn't.
It almost killed me playing that. It makes you feel dumb. I think that's a crime a lot of demos suffer from, is a lack of active learning. Look at Burnout Paradise, you start the game and it tells you, this is a map, this is a car, this is a short cut, this is a road blah blah blah.
I loved it when you could play a game, and not know everything that was going to happen or everything that you could do. The Burnout Paradise demo just gave you everything and it put me off. Which is sad, because the full game is great if you miss all the tutorial stuff.
Chopemon says:
I agree. Developers haven't completely honed how to make a demo. It is hard though. How do you sell your game in a small amount of time whilst explaining the controls and providing a learning curve? Tutorials are boring and are normally badly done anyway but games have such complex control schemes that they are hard to just dump on the player. The only demo I can think of that got the balance between tutorial and freedom of play right was Crackdown.
Ben says:
You're right, the fun to be had from that game was the fun you found. The play it your way approach is great for demos, because there is no punishment, you aren't affecting high scores or ranks. I think the reason Crackdown worked so well as a demo, was that the best aspect, or at least the most addictive aspect of that game was free running.
The ability to leap as high as a sky scraper never got old, and that's why it worked, because the most fun part of the game was there from second 1 in the demo.
Chopemon says:
I want to ask, what would you say is your demo to purchase rate? Mine is pretty high. Regardless of me buying most games anyway, my purchases are often affirmed by a demo. Recently I was umming and ahhing about Red Faction Guerilla but the demo sold me on it.
Ben says:
I wouldn't say it was that high for me, there are few games that have really sold themselves to me based on a demo. Most of the time I know if I want to buy a game before I play the demo, the demo usually just confirms my thoughts. Sometimes it almost works the other way, warning me off something i didn't want
I can honestly say the last time I remember a demo selling me the game was Grim Fandango;
I played the demo and wanted to know more.
For me, Red Faction Guerilla put me off.
I'm very much into character development and narrative and plot in games. If done right I think they are just what a game needs to draw emotion from a player. I know its hard but it is possible. When i played the Red Faction demo, I thought, oh cool, you can smash everything.... now what? It just felt like same old same old.
To me anyway
Why did it excite you so much?
Chopemon says:
I guess I just how it appealed to the lowest sense of fun in videogames. I could blow stuff up and it looked real pretty. It was just mindless fun, a good fun sand box, playful experience. I tend to be like you, my decision to buy has been reaffirmed. I buy so many games that demos become a reassurance rather than a converter.
Did you used to pick up demo disk magazines before the rise of online demos?
Ben says:
Yeah I did, much more for PC than console though. I think it was just the range of available demos. I used to install all of them and then give each one 5 mins, if it didn't have me buy then I dumped it. I would even sometimes replay a demo as soon as I finished it because it drew me in so much.
I think part of it is the fact that we know so much about games that are going to come out these days there's no surprise any more.
Chopemon says:
I can't remember how many times I replayed the Starcraft demo mini campaign.
I think for us we already know what the game is but the vast majority of people often have no idea what a game is until they play a demo. We keep our ears pretty close to the ground and watch all the videos and read the previews. A lot of people don't. That's why I wonder if demos do enough to sell themselves.
Ben says:
You hit on it earlier, but don't you think timing in demos is sometimes dubious?
Like with the Too Human demo?
Way too long, where as some don't even let you get started.
The Mirrors Edge demo worked well for me length wise, but it was punishing, making you re-run sections over and over if you pressed a wrong button.
Chopemon says:
That was the game though. The game was brutal if you were 'bad' at it. The worst bit of that demo was the tutorial! I enjoy demos like Ninja Blade and FEAR where they do remix levels. The levels are chopped and changed so that you play the demo, enjoy some excellent buts but the levels in the game are still fresh and relatively unspoilt.
My last point for this topic is where do demos go in the future? Microsoft TRCs don't allow save games but the PS3 TRCs do. This allowed the orbs collected in the Ninja Gaiden Sigma demo to carry over to the full game. More linking of demos to games could be vital in the demo to purchase rate so they don't feel throw away. What would you like to see demos start doing?
Ben says:
I like the idea of linking demos to the released titles, some people might see it as a cheeky marketing scheme though. I think more than anything I want to see more trust in gamers, in terms of skill and intelligence. Let them work some things out for themselves, surprise them.
Chopemon says:
That is an excellent closing comment. I think this went pretty well for a first effort. Thanks a lot Ben, good to have you aboard for this.
Ben says:
Really enjoyed it, thanks for asking me.
Saturday 18 April 2009
The Good Nazi Zombie is a Dead Nazi Zombie
My review for the Nazi Zombie mode in Call of Duty World at War just went up over at NTSC-UK.
Check it here.
This was a great review to write because of all the fun I had playing it with S-Dog during our beer soaked evenings at his place. Discovering all the ins and outs of the game mode with his was one of the best gaming experiences ever. Props also go out to my brother who I have fended off the undead with online.
This review is a great example of the ethos of NTSC-UK's review system. I didn't really have anything I wanted to say about the full game of World at War but I have a lot to evangelise in the Nazi Zombie mode. Most sites would require me to cover the entire game but because NTSC-UK values quality over quantity I get to write about aspects of games that mean something to me. Check out Charles's review of Mirrors Edge to see another example of a writer focusing on a particular aspect of the game and producing a really strong review.
As always, the rest of my reviews are here.
I also want to tease a new feature I'll be posting up next week. Myself and Ben G are collaborating on a game design feature for this blog that will either be off the chain or a massive disaster. We'll see later next week.
I shall also be posting up some kind of brain fart about a slightly scientific way to place cover in your shooting games. It may lead to my Gamasutra piece, we'll see how it goes.
Check it here.
This was a great review to write because of all the fun I had playing it with S-Dog during our beer soaked evenings at his place. Discovering all the ins and outs of the game mode with his was one of the best gaming experiences ever. Props also go out to my brother who I have fended off the undead with online.
This review is a great example of the ethos of NTSC-UK's review system. I didn't really have anything I wanted to say about the full game of World at War but I have a lot to evangelise in the Nazi Zombie mode. Most sites would require me to cover the entire game but because NTSC-UK values quality over quantity I get to write about aspects of games that mean something to me. Check out Charles's review of Mirrors Edge to see another example of a writer focusing on a particular aspect of the game and producing a really strong review.
As always, the rest of my reviews are here.
I also want to tease a new feature I'll be posting up next week. Myself and Ben G are collaborating on a game design feature for this blog that will either be off the chain or a massive disaster. We'll see later next week.
I shall also be posting up some kind of brain fart about a slightly scientific way to place cover in your shooting games. It may lead to my Gamasutra piece, we'll see how it goes.
Tuesday 14 April 2009
If You Can't Do Box Art Yourself, Let GAF Do It.
As we have already covered, most game companies don't know how to do box art.
Enter GAF.
For the uninitiated, NEOGAF is the biggest, and some would say the most important, gaming forum on the web. Developers often frequent it and Dyack and Jaffe have been known to throw down with the community on there.
They recently ran some kind of art project where they took the Criterion approach to box art (classy and artistic) and mocked up some game box arts.
The results are pretty fucking stunning.
Enter GAF.
For the uninitiated, NEOGAF is the biggest, and some would say the most important, gaming forum on the web. Developers often frequent it and Dyack and Jaffe have been known to throw down with the community on there.
They recently ran some kind of art project where they took the Criterion approach to box art (classy and artistic) and mocked up some game box arts.
The results are pretty fucking stunning.
Sunday 12 April 2009
What Even is Fun?
Dig in for another rambling post...
Fun is inherently entirely subjective and indescribable which makes my job incredibly hard. Game design has very little science. There are very few hard and fast rules that can be applied in a given situation. You have to feel it out, poke and prod the scenario or mechanic you're working on and apply the knowledge you've gained from consuming the various sources of knowledge that input into your life and hope for the best.
One of the main items of discussion between designers is the subject of fun. This can be an overt discussion where we talk about the definition of fun or it can be shuffling the location of two staircases in a level to provide the 'fairest' firing lines between opposing combatants. The most minor thing is a discussion on fun. Which buttons can the player use to exit the pause menu is a great example of a low level decision that has nothing to do with how awesome we can make a head explode but has a dramatic impact on the fun of using a menu.
So one would presume that us designers have a definition for this whole fun thing, right?
Well we don't. This is part of the larger discussion about how we don't have any kind of usable vocabulary for discussing games but for now we'll deal with the concept of fun. Or more precisely the concept of fun and negative emotions.
To a lot of people fun is simply a case of how fast their car goes, how many bullets it takes to down a guy or how long the coloured fungus makes you invincible for. The theory behind this fun is expertly written about by Raph Koster in his book A Theory of Fun. The main thrust of the book is that fun comes from exploring a rules system, learning that rules system and then mastering it.
I think about how I enjoy media a lot. What kind of fun am I experiencing that leads to my enjoyment?
This leads to the question as to why we only really have games that are simple fun and we don't have games that promote negative experiences. Randy Smith recently wrote in Edge about how we don't make games that are like Requiem for a Dream. Publishers and a lot of developers often don't see the value in the fun of the catharsis of a negative experience or they don't care enough to tackle the issues raised in doing such a project. Famously David Jaffe was once working on a game that explored the horrors of war but it was cancelled because it wasn't fun. We have no way of knowing why it wasn't fun and I imagine that finding out would be fascinating.
We have a games industry where fun is measured in 30 second increments rather than over the entire period of playing the game. This means that we can't design games that are cathartic experiences that deal with anything other thanvisceral joy. We can't explore anything other than the type of fun that Mario so well defines.
We watch horror movies because we enjoy working through negative emotions. We read books about horrific experiences because we enjoy working through negative emotions. We play games to get simple minded rewards. Notice the discrepancy?
All too often a negative experience in a game in down to shitty controls or cheating AI and not down to exploring emotions. We keep talking about advancing games as art and one of the ways we can do this is opening up the range of emotions that we have in games and realising that the exploration of these emotions is fun.
Fun isn't just mastering head shots, fun is exploring our emotions and learning about ourselves in the process. Even if something is hard work or gives off negative stimuli, it can still be fun. I want to see games that are experiences rather than expanded demos. I cried three separate times during Metal Gear Solid 4. We have achieved games that makes us cry. Now we need to make games that go beyond that. Chainsawing dudes in half is completely satisfying but perhaps we can have a game where the fun is derived from working through the guilt and disgust that cutting someone in half could bring.
Fun is inherently entirely subjective and indescribable which makes my job incredibly hard. Game design has very little science. There are very few hard and fast rules that can be applied in a given situation. You have to feel it out, poke and prod the scenario or mechanic you're working on and apply the knowledge you've gained from consuming the various sources of knowledge that input into your life and hope for the best.
One of the main items of discussion between designers is the subject of fun. This can be an overt discussion where we talk about the definition of fun or it can be shuffling the location of two staircases in a level to provide the 'fairest' firing lines between opposing combatants. The most minor thing is a discussion on fun. Which buttons can the player use to exit the pause menu is a great example of a low level decision that has nothing to do with how awesome we can make a head explode but has a dramatic impact on the fun of using a menu.
So one would presume that us designers have a definition for this whole fun thing, right?
Well we don't. This is part of the larger discussion about how we don't have any kind of usable vocabulary for discussing games but for now we'll deal with the concept of fun. Or more precisely the concept of fun and negative emotions.
To a lot of people fun is simply a case of how fast their car goes, how many bullets it takes to down a guy or how long the coloured fungus makes you invincible for. The theory behind this fun is expertly written about by Raph Koster in his book A Theory of Fun. The main thrust of the book is that fun comes from exploring a rules system, learning that rules system and then mastering it.
I think about how I enjoy media a lot. What kind of fun am I experiencing that leads to my enjoyment?
This leads to the question as to why we only really have games that are simple fun and we don't have games that promote negative experiences. Randy Smith recently wrote in Edge about how we don't make games that are like Requiem for a Dream. Publishers and a lot of developers often don't see the value in the fun of the catharsis of a negative experience or they don't care enough to tackle the issues raised in doing such a project. Famously David Jaffe was once working on a game that explored the horrors of war but it was cancelled because it wasn't fun. We have no way of knowing why it wasn't fun and I imagine that finding out would be fascinating.
We have a games industry where fun is measured in 30 second increments rather than over the entire period of playing the game. This means that we can't design games that are cathartic experiences that deal with anything other thanvisceral joy. We can't explore anything other than the type of fun that Mario so well defines.
We watch horror movies because we enjoy working through negative emotions. We read books about horrific experiences because we enjoy working through negative emotions. We play games to get simple minded rewards. Notice the discrepancy?
All too often a negative experience in a game in down to shitty controls or cheating AI and not down to exploring emotions. We keep talking about advancing games as art and one of the ways we can do this is opening up the range of emotions that we have in games and realising that the exploration of these emotions is fun.
Fun isn't just mastering head shots, fun is exploring our emotions and learning about ourselves in the process. Even if something is hard work or gives off negative stimuli, it can still be fun. I want to see games that are experiences rather than expanded demos. I cried three separate times during Metal Gear Solid 4. We have achieved games that makes us cry. Now we need to make games that go beyond that. Chainsawing dudes in half is completely satisfying but perhaps we can have a game where the fun is derived from working through the guilt and disgust that cutting someone in half could bring.
Tuesday 7 April 2009
Why Isn't Losing Fun?
So I play Warhammer 40,000.
Don't judge me.
I play regularly with guys that I work with. By play I of course mean lose against all the fucking time. But this is a unique experience. I have played amazing games against these guys and despite continually losing I have had a blast.
Beware: this piece may not go anywhere and may just be a ramble.
Last night was one such occasion. The game went back and forth between myself and my opponent and it could have gone either way. It was completely exciting (the only time I pray to a deity is when I roll armour saves for an entire squad) and I had a great time. I learnt a lot about my opponent, his army and myself and my army. I went up against the unknown and didn't pick the right units and the units that I did pick weren't used as they should have been. I came away after having a great evening with some great war stories.
After this battle I went home and myself and Beast played the last level of Halo Wars on Legendary difficulty. Ignore what the reviews say, Halo Wars is excellent. No doubt. I've clocked 24 hours on it which was news to me as time has flown by as I have had so much fun.
This last level was the exact opposite of the Warhammer battles where I have faced crushing defeat. It was no fun. I was angry, shouting and about to rip my controller in half. It took us about five attempts to get through it.
I get it, Legendary is supposed to be difficult but should a game really make me want to smash inanimate objects?
So my question is this: Why isn't it fun to lose in a videogame?
In single player this normally comes down to cheating AI (Seth and Jinpachi) or things being outside of your control. For example, I recently died in GTA 4 because some enemy happened to clip a barrel near me with a bullet and sent my character ragdolling into the water. Seeing as this was my fourth attempt at the mission I had a small rage stroke.
This is part of a much larger discussion that should possibly be had when I haven't been drinking but why do game creators not engender a sense of fun in losing? We're spending an awful lot of time in preventing losing (Prince of Persia, Gears of War 2) instead of making losing fun.
I realise that bro-ing out over Warhammer is totally different to fighting a group of moronic AI characters but perhaps we should focus not on getting 10 dudes on screen but rather focus on making fighting 2 enemies really thrilling.
Game designers are acutely aware that players don't like failing in their games. This is mostly because the fail conditions are unfair. Players either die because the AI is spamming grenades, enemies have magically invulnerable frames of animation or physics ruins a perfect racing line. Instead of being preoccupied with preventing failure, lets make failure fun.
It is important to note that I subscribe to the theory that fun comes through learning and mastering skills and then expressing those skills. So lets make encounters with enemies promote that fun. FEAR 2 almost mastered this. In the early part of the game I got flanked by an enemy and almost died. I did some heroic shit and survived and then realised that I was playing a Monolith game and I need to bring my A game. I died and came close to dying a number of times in that game and each time was thrilling because I learnt something new about the AI, my reactions or the weapons and reloaded a checkpoint and kicked some ass.
Time is precious to us and winning is a good way to spend that time. Surely losing can be winning though? By losing we may learn a new skill or have an exciting experience and this is a totally valid and valuable way to spend our time. I want to see more games take a good hard look at their fail conditions and work out a way to make them fun.
Like I said, this is a ramble. I'm still finding my writing feet.
EDIT: I want to put a shout out to my bros at (what was once) Swordfish. I blasted through 50 Cent and then went back to play some levels on easy to grind out a few achievements. I died because I was being cavalier and I got an achievement for dying on easy. I actually lolled. Like out loud.
Well played guys, well played.
Don't judge me.
I play regularly with guys that I work with. By play I of course mean lose against all the fucking time. But this is a unique experience. I have played amazing games against these guys and despite continually losing I have had a blast.
Beware: this piece may not go anywhere and may just be a ramble.
Last night was one such occasion. The game went back and forth between myself and my opponent and it could have gone either way. It was completely exciting (the only time I pray to a deity is when I roll armour saves for an entire squad) and I had a great time. I learnt a lot about my opponent, his army and myself and my army. I went up against the unknown and didn't pick the right units and the units that I did pick weren't used as they should have been. I came away after having a great evening with some great war stories.
After this battle I went home and myself and Beast played the last level of Halo Wars on Legendary difficulty. Ignore what the reviews say, Halo Wars is excellent. No doubt. I've clocked 24 hours on it which was news to me as time has flown by as I have had so much fun.
This last level was the exact opposite of the Warhammer battles where I have faced crushing defeat. It was no fun. I was angry, shouting and about to rip my controller in half. It took us about five attempts to get through it.
I get it, Legendary is supposed to be difficult but should a game really make me want to smash inanimate objects?
So my question is this: Why isn't it fun to lose in a videogame?
In single player this normally comes down to cheating AI (Seth and Jinpachi) or things being outside of your control. For example, I recently died in GTA 4 because some enemy happened to clip a barrel near me with a bullet and sent my character ragdolling into the water. Seeing as this was my fourth attempt at the mission I had a small rage stroke.
This is part of a much larger discussion that should possibly be had when I haven't been drinking but why do game creators not engender a sense of fun in losing? We're spending an awful lot of time in preventing losing (Prince of Persia, Gears of War 2) instead of making losing fun.
I realise that bro-ing out over Warhammer is totally different to fighting a group of moronic AI characters but perhaps we should focus not on getting 10 dudes on screen but rather focus on making fighting 2 enemies really thrilling.
Game designers are acutely aware that players don't like failing in their games. This is mostly because the fail conditions are unfair. Players either die because the AI is spamming grenades, enemies have magically invulnerable frames of animation or physics ruins a perfect racing line. Instead of being preoccupied with preventing failure, lets make failure fun.
It is important to note that I subscribe to the theory that fun comes through learning and mastering skills and then expressing those skills. So lets make encounters with enemies promote that fun. FEAR 2 almost mastered this. In the early part of the game I got flanked by an enemy and almost died. I did some heroic shit and survived and then realised that I was playing a Monolith game and I need to bring my A game. I died and came close to dying a number of times in that game and each time was thrilling because I learnt something new about the AI, my reactions or the weapons and reloaded a checkpoint and kicked some ass.
Time is precious to us and winning is a good way to spend that time. Surely losing can be winning though? By losing we may learn a new skill or have an exciting experience and this is a totally valid and valuable way to spend our time. I want to see more games take a good hard look at their fail conditions and work out a way to make them fun.
Like I said, this is a ramble. I'm still finding my writing feet.
EDIT: I want to put a shout out to my bros at (what was once) Swordfish. I blasted through 50 Cent and then went back to play some levels on easy to grind out a few achievements. I died because I was being cavalier and I got an achievement for dying on easy. I actually lolled. Like out loud.
Well played guys, well played.
Trev Everybody
This is a pimping post. Not pimping as in "having two wands is pretty pimp" but rather, pimping a friend's work.
Trev used to work aboard the good ship Rebellion and is the most fly Halo 3 player I know. He also is an artist! And has a blog!
Come, let us marvel at his creations!
Trev used to work aboard the good ship Rebellion and is the most fly Halo 3 player I know. He also is an artist! And has a blog!
Come, let us marvel at his creations!
Sunday 5 April 2009
Stuart's Contribution
Seeing as all you kids are into this web 2.0 ish where everyone gets to have an input, this week's Community Spotlight falls on to Stuart 'S-Dog' Yarham who pointed out the Ico box art differences between PAL and NTSC.
Stuart also gets special mention for finding one of the two things that makes me projectile vomit whenever I see it. The NTSC box art for Ico is an abomination. Fortunately the PAL version is much better and is a joy to behold.
If this kind of exciting blogging doesn't get both myself and Stu laid (hard) I really don't know what will.
Stuart also gets special mention for finding one of the two things that makes me projectile vomit whenever I see it. The NTSC box art for Ico is an abomination. Fortunately the PAL version is much better and is a joy to behold.
If this kind of exciting blogging doesn't get both myself and Stu laid (hard) I really don't know what will.
Saturday 4 April 2009
When Game Covers Get it Wrong - Part 1
Being a game designer is a curse and a blessing. The blessing is obvious, I have the greatest job in the world but the curse is less obvious.
It ruins your life.
For once I'm not talking about my heroin addiction and I should perhaps clarify my statement; specifically it heightens your critique of everything and how you look at everything you encounter. Every designer should have read The Design of Everyday Things and have a thoroughly analytical view of everything they come across.
In CSI New York, Gary Sinise's detective character said "It's my job to know a little bit about everything." This is especially true of game designers and an analytical view along with a buckshot spread of knowledge are the best qualities of a good designer.
Apparently this doesn't apply to the rest of the fucking industry. By which I mean box art designers.
Example A - Ninja Blade
I mean, what even is this?
For the record, I like Ninja Blade and am a From Software fan boy but whoever let this out needs firing.
There is fuck all worth buying at the moment besides this and so the question has to be asked, why was this the final box art candidate?
Ok, it isn't particularly offensive (and certainly doesn't feature Master Chief falling over) but it breaks several (what I consider to be) rules of consumer psychology.
Imagine walking into a store and seeing this on the shelf. Get up out of your chair, brush the cheese puff dust off your belly and walk past this image, just glancing at it as if you were in a store.
What can you tell me about it?
The only thing you will note is that it is mostly black with what appears to be random noise all over it. Upon closer inspection that random noise is actually a ninja (replete with blades) and something with a tongue falling down a skyscraper.
Fair enough, this actually tells you a lot about the game but doesn't help sell copies. The art is indistinct and nothing stands out. There is nothing memorable and this is all important in retail space. If someone doesn't walk past and instantly see something appealling they have moved on and are not picking up a copy of that game.
In a couple of weeks where there is nothing to buy other than Chinatown Wars (which is goddamn excellent thanks for asking) and Mad World, this could have been a huge seller on the 360. Hell, in a similar release schedule a couple of years ago, Tenchu Z broke the top 20. People like ninjas and they like buying games for their 360, this could sell a shitload but it probably won't. I'm not saying this is all down to the box art but it has an effect.
When I saw this in a store the other day I walked right past it, acknowledged the words Ninja Blade and moved on. Later I thought back to the box and realised I couldn't actually picture what was on it and this inspired this very niche interest blog post (sorry I haven't kept up with my one a day count recently. Work, Halo Wars and Warhammer painting has kept me busy).
So there's an insight into a designers mind. The slightest thing about product design triggers off totally OCD amounts of thought and neural processing cycles. Box art design is one of my favourite topics as some are things of beauty (PAL Resident Evil 4) and some are fucking abortions (NTSC Resident Evil 4). And for the record, I liked the Orange Box box art.
It ruins your life.
For once I'm not talking about my heroin addiction and I should perhaps clarify my statement; specifically it heightens your critique of everything and how you look at everything you encounter. Every designer should have read The Design of Everyday Things and have a thoroughly analytical view of everything they come across.
In CSI New York, Gary Sinise's detective character said "It's my job to know a little bit about everything." This is especially true of game designers and an analytical view along with a buckshot spread of knowledge are the best qualities of a good designer.
Apparently this doesn't apply to the rest of the fucking industry. By which I mean box art designers.
Example A - Ninja Blade
I mean, what even is this?
For the record, I like Ninja Blade and am a From Software fan boy but whoever let this out needs firing.There is fuck all worth buying at the moment besides this and so the question has to be asked, why was this the final box art candidate?
Ok, it isn't particularly offensive (and certainly doesn't feature Master Chief falling over) but it breaks several (what I consider to be) rules of consumer psychology.
Imagine walking into a store and seeing this on the shelf. Get up out of your chair, brush the cheese puff dust off your belly and walk past this image, just glancing at it as if you were in a store.
What can you tell me about it?
The only thing you will note is that it is mostly black with what appears to be random noise all over it. Upon closer inspection that random noise is actually a ninja (replete with blades) and something with a tongue falling down a skyscraper.
Fair enough, this actually tells you a lot about the game but doesn't help sell copies. The art is indistinct and nothing stands out. There is nothing memorable and this is all important in retail space. If someone doesn't walk past and instantly see something appealling they have moved on and are not picking up a copy of that game.
In a couple of weeks where there is nothing to buy other than Chinatown Wars (which is goddamn excellent thanks for asking) and Mad World, this could have been a huge seller on the 360. Hell, in a similar release schedule a couple of years ago, Tenchu Z broke the top 20. People like ninjas and they like buying games for their 360, this could sell a shitload but it probably won't. I'm not saying this is all down to the box art but it has an effect.
When I saw this in a store the other day I walked right past it, acknowledged the words Ninja Blade and moved on. Later I thought back to the box and realised I couldn't actually picture what was on it and this inspired this very niche interest blog post (sorry I haven't kept up with my one a day count recently. Work, Halo Wars and Warhammer painting has kept me busy).
So there's an insight into a designers mind. The slightest thing about product design triggers off totally OCD amounts of thought and neural processing cycles. Box art design is one of my favourite topics as some are things of beauty (PAL Resident Evil 4) and some are fucking abortions (NTSC Resident Evil 4). And for the record, I liked the Orange Box box art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)