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.
Saturday, 18 April 2009
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)