We at Frictional Games are yet again part of a Humble Indie Bundle and this time it is quite the pack. Our contribution is Amnesia: The Dark Descent and it is joined by Limbo, Bastion, Psychonauts and Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery. This pack of games is offered to a price of your own choosing, and part of the revenue, you chose how much, will go to charity. This video will explain more:
I think the all of the games that Amnesia share the bundle with are quite special, and are all really worth playing if you haven't yet.
Sword and Sworcery was my top from last year and there is a lot to learn from playing it. Foremost, it has this magical blend of music, gameplay and graphics that really shows of the strengths of the medium. It is clear that this is not a game that has been created to be some kind of competition, but to create a special, mystical experience. This is something we need more of.
Limbo manages to create a very tense atmosphere, but more importantly it how to use a very simplistic control scheme to create great variety. Nowadays, game often require you to learn tons of buttons, but in Limbo you understand all required controls after a few minutes of play. And yet the game manages to give you varied activities from start to finish. It also never takes away control from the player, allowing for a highly interactive narrative experience.
Bastion is excellent in the way it builds up its fiction. The constant voice over gives meaning to your actions and also let you see the world in a quite different way than you would have otherwise. As the flowing narrative unfolds, enemies stop being cannon fodder and instead feel like proper denizens of the world. By small means a lot of depth is added to the game, and I highly recommend it in a lesson on how to do story exposition.
Finally, Psychonauts paint up a vibrant world filled with quirky, interesting and yet human characters. What I liked best about it is how the core theme of the game, to enter people's minds, really merges both gameplay and storytelling. Actually playing the game does not simply servers as some filler between plot points, but actually adds depth to the narrative.
Also, note that the sound tracks of all games comes along with the bundle! I mean, the awesome sound track from Sword & Sworcery is enough reason to buy the bundle alone. The music from Bastion is not bad either...
10 Ways to Evolve Horror Games
Introduction
Around 10 years ago, a lot of very interesting and ground breaking horror games were released. These include Silent Hill (1999), Fatal Frame (2001), Forbidden Siren (2003) and a few more. Since then not much has happened in the video-game horror genre and little has evolved. So what exactly can be done to push horror in video-games further? To answer that I will here present a list of my top 10 things I think could take horror game to the next level:
1) Normality
In most games the player usually starts out in some strange and not very normal situation. In our own game, Amnesia, the story takes place in early 19th century and has the protagonist waking up in gothic castle. Not something very easy to relate to. Other games see the player has some secret agent, has them trapped in a spooky town/village, etc. All of these are very abnormal situations, and something few of us will ever find ourselves in.
However, much of the good horror in other media starts of very mundane. They build on the having the audience strongly relating to what is taking place and being able to draw close parallels to their own lives. For horror games this would mean to establish a very familiar situation and then slowly introduce the horror there. The goal is for the terror to not just be inside the game's virtual world, but to reach into the real as well.
2) Long Build-up
Most games want to kick off the action as soon as possible. Even games with a drawn-out introduction, like Silent Hill 2, introduce the horror elements very early on. The problem is that sustaining a really high level of terror is only possible shorter bursts and the more the audience has to contrast to, the greater the peaks intensity will feel. Ring (Japanese version) is a prime example of this. While it does kick off the horror early on, the whole movie is basically one long build-up to a final scare moment. Horror video-games need to embrace this sort of thing more, but in order to do so a two common traits need to let go. First of all, the game must rely a lot less on a repeatable core mechanic, since we want the player to deal with actual horror elements as little as possible. Secondly, we must perhaps revise the game length and be satisfied with an experience lasting three hours or less, so that all focus can be on establishing a single (or just few) peaks of terror.
3) Doubt
Many of the best horror stories raise the question whether a phenomena really exists. Is the protagonist really seeing ghosts, or is it all in her mind? Since other media like film and books are very grounded in our reality, this sort of thing comes natural (although it is still not always easy to sustain). However, in video-games the player is in a virtual world with its own rules and entities, and this leaves little room for the player to doubt if anything could really exist. Solving this is not an easy feat though, but I think a first step is to embrace the previous two entries in this list, normality and a long build-up. If the player can relate to the game as "real-life" and gets enough time to establish this idea, then she will eventually start to compare any features of the virtual world with the real. Eventually she might doubting if the ghosts, monsters or whatnot are really there. Also, some sort of sanity mechanic can also do the trick, but it must be a lot more subtle then any previous attempt. The player cannot see it as a game system, but has to view it has a feature of their own mind. This is not an easy thing to establish, but that is not the same as it is impossible.
4) Minimal Combat
I have talked plenty about this before (see here and here for instance), but it is worth stating again. The worst thing about combat is that it makes the player focus on all the wrong things, and makes them miss many of the subtle cues that are so important to an effective atmosphere. It also establishes a core game system that makes the player so much more comfortable in the game's world. And comfort is not something we want when our goal is to induce intense feelings of terror.
Still, combat is not a bad thing and one could use it in ways that evokes helplessness instead. For instance, by giving the player weapons that are ineffective the desperation of the situation is further heightened. This is a slippery slope though as once you show a weapon to the player it instantly puts them in an action game mindset. That does not mean weapons and combat should be abolished, but that one should thread very carefully, and finding the right balance is a big challenge for future horror games.
5) No Enemies
By this I do not mean that there should be no threats to the player lurking about. What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as "enemies". The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game. It also makes us think less about why these creatures are in our virtual world. The word enemy is such an easy label to put on other beings, and then not worry about anything except that we need to destroy or avoid them. This is how wars work after all.
If we instead think of these creatures as merely inhabitants of our virtual worlds we need to ask ourselves why they are there, what their motivations are and so forth. This brings a new depth to the game which is bound to color the player's imagination. If we can establish our hostile beings as calculating, intelligent beings with an agenda, we vastly increase the intensity of any encounter and can make the terror so much stronger.
6) Open world
By this I do not mean that horror games should strive to be GTA-like sandbox experiences, but simply that they should allow more freedom of movement. Most horror games set up a very strict path for the player to follow even if they have, like Silent Hill, a large world to explore. Instead I think the games should allow for the player to skip certain areas and to go about in the world in a free way. This increases the player's feeling of being in a real world, increasing any emotions associated with it. This is also closely related to the goal of achieving normality. Without a forced structure and more open world, it should be easier to give the sense of everyday life.
7) Agency
Horror games are so effective because they can make the player feel as they are there when the horror happens. Other media, especially in the horror genre, have to try really hard to accomplish this, but for games it comes almost automatically. It is then a waste that many horror games does not take advantage of this properly and destroy the sense of agency in all kind of ways. By far the biggest culprit are cut-scenes, especially when they take away control at scary moments when the player's actions should matter the most. Another problem is connected with the open world entry above and the player constantly being fed where to go and what to do.
The way to go forward here is to make sure that the player is involved in all actions that take place. The scenes that are so often left out (and replaced by cutscenes) are often vital aspects of the horror experience. Whenever possible, the playing should be doing instead of simply watching.
8) Reflection
The video game medium can better than any other give sense of responsibility. If something, caused by the protagonist, happens on the screen then the player has been part of that. This opens up for the game to be able to reflect itself upon the player and to make players think about themselves while playing. Games have been trying to do this in the past, but I do not think it has come very far yet. So called moral choices are very common in games, but are hampered by being obvious predefined selections (chose A, B or C) and by being connected to the game dynamics (making the choice more about what is best for the player stats wise). I think that the choices need to come out as much more organic for the player to truly feel as if they have caused them. To be able to do this a strong sense of agency (as mentioned in the previous entry) must be achieved and the player must truly feel like it was their own choice (which ties into the "open world"-entry above).
I also think that this can be taken a lot further than simply testing the player's ethics. It can put player in very uncomfortable situations and to really make them evaluate themselves as human beings. The game could also lure them into mind states that they never thought they had in them. It can explore the nature of good and evil and similar subjects in away that would be impossible other medium. In the end this can lead to some really personal and terrifying experiences.
9) Implications
What really brings some horror home is how it has some kind of implications in real life. This can be something like the fear of TV-sets that Ring manages to achieve, or the bleak and disturbing universe that Lovecraft's stories paint. Elements like these are almost entirely missing from video games and again it ties into other entries on the list. Normality is probably the most important, and if we are able to achieve that it will be much easier to tie stuff of the game into everyday life. A game that can achieve this successfully takes the horror to a new level, by being something that the player carries with them long after having put down the controller.
10) Human interaction
The final entry will also be the hardest one: to bring human drama into the game's actions. Most horror in other media does not have the phenomena/situation per se as its focus, but instead its effect on people. The Exorcist is a great example of this, and so is The Shining. However, in video-games the main actions still revolve around inanimate objects or brainless foes. By having the player's actions being directly tied to other people, the horror gets so much more personal and intense.
Achieving this is not an easy task though. My opinion is that it is not a technical problem, but one of design and to place a larger burden on the player's imagination. Simulating a fully (or at least seemingly) sentient human being is a really hard problem. Simple solutions like dialog trees come often out as stiff and prefabricated. Instead one should go the route of simple actions, like Ico for instance, and build upon that by being vague and hinting instead of trying replicate a book or movie. Exactly how to go about is an open question, but the any steps closer to success can mean a lot of the horror experience.
End Notes
That concludes my 10 steps for better horror games. It will be fun to see if they are still valid 10 years from now or not. If you have any other ideas on how to evolve horror games, please say so in the comments!
Around 10 years ago, a lot of very interesting and ground breaking horror games were released. These include Silent Hill (1999), Fatal Frame (2001), Forbidden Siren (2003) and a few more. Since then not much has happened in the video-game horror genre and little has evolved. So what exactly can be done to push horror in video-games further? To answer that I will here present a list of my top 10 things I think could take horror game to the next level:
1) Normality
In most games the player usually starts out in some strange and not very normal situation. In our own game, Amnesia, the story takes place in early 19th century and has the protagonist waking up in gothic castle. Not something very easy to relate to. Other games see the player has some secret agent, has them trapped in a spooky town/village, etc. All of these are very abnormal situations, and something few of us will ever find ourselves in.
However, much of the good horror in other media starts of very mundane. They build on the having the audience strongly relating to what is taking place and being able to draw close parallels to their own lives. For horror games this would mean to establish a very familiar situation and then slowly introduce the horror there. The goal is for the terror to not just be inside the game's virtual world, but to reach into the real as well.
2) Long Build-up
Most games want to kick off the action as soon as possible. Even games with a drawn-out introduction, like Silent Hill 2, introduce the horror elements very early on. The problem is that sustaining a really high level of terror is only possible shorter bursts and the more the audience has to contrast to, the greater the peaks intensity will feel. Ring (Japanese version) is a prime example of this. While it does kick off the horror early on, the whole movie is basically one long build-up to a final scare moment. Horror video-games need to embrace this sort of thing more, but in order to do so a two common traits need to let go. First of all, the game must rely a lot less on a repeatable core mechanic, since we want the player to deal with actual horror elements as little as possible. Secondly, we must perhaps revise the game length and be satisfied with an experience lasting three hours or less, so that all focus can be on establishing a single (or just few) peaks of terror.
3) Doubt
Many of the best horror stories raise the question whether a phenomena really exists. Is the protagonist really seeing ghosts, or is it all in her mind? Since other media like film and books are very grounded in our reality, this sort of thing comes natural (although it is still not always easy to sustain). However, in video-games the player is in a virtual world with its own rules and entities, and this leaves little room for the player to doubt if anything could really exist. Solving this is not an easy feat though, but I think a first step is to embrace the previous two entries in this list, normality and a long build-up. If the player can relate to the game as "real-life" and gets enough time to establish this idea, then she will eventually start to compare any features of the virtual world with the real. Eventually she might doubting if the ghosts, monsters or whatnot are really there. Also, some sort of sanity mechanic can also do the trick, but it must be a lot more subtle then any previous attempt. The player cannot see it as a game system, but has to view it has a feature of their own mind. This is not an easy thing to establish, but that is not the same as it is impossible.
4) Minimal Combat
I have talked plenty about this before (see here and here for instance), but it is worth stating again. The worst thing about combat is that it makes the player focus on all the wrong things, and makes them miss many of the subtle cues that are so important to an effective atmosphere. It also establishes a core game system that makes the player so much more comfortable in the game's world. And comfort is not something we want when our goal is to induce intense feelings of terror.
Still, combat is not a bad thing and one could use it in ways that evokes helplessness instead. For instance, by giving the player weapons that are ineffective the desperation of the situation is further heightened. This is a slippery slope though as once you show a weapon to the player it instantly puts them in an action game mindset. That does not mean weapons and combat should be abolished, but that one should thread very carefully, and finding the right balance is a big challenge for future horror games.
5) No Enemies
By this I do not mean that there should be no threats to the player lurking about. What I mean is that we need to stop thinking of any creatures that we put into the game as "enemies". The word enemy makes us think about war and physical conflict, which is really not the focus in a horror game. It also makes us think less about why these creatures are in our virtual world. The word enemy is such an easy label to put on other beings, and then not worry about anything except that we need to destroy or avoid them. This is how wars work after all.
If we instead think of these creatures as merely inhabitants of our virtual worlds we need to ask ourselves why they are there, what their motivations are and so forth. This brings a new depth to the game which is bound to color the player's imagination. If we can establish our hostile beings as calculating, intelligent beings with an agenda, we vastly increase the intensity of any encounter and can make the terror so much stronger.
6) Open world
By this I do not mean that horror games should strive to be GTA-like sandbox experiences, but simply that they should allow more freedom of movement. Most horror games set up a very strict path for the player to follow even if they have, like Silent Hill, a large world to explore. Instead I think the games should allow for the player to skip certain areas and to go about in the world in a free way. This increases the player's feeling of being in a real world, increasing any emotions associated with it. This is also closely related to the goal of achieving normality. Without a forced structure and more open world, it should be easier to give the sense of everyday life.
7) Agency
Horror games are so effective because they can make the player feel as they are there when the horror happens. Other media, especially in the horror genre, have to try really hard to accomplish this, but for games it comes almost automatically. It is then a waste that many horror games does not take advantage of this properly and destroy the sense of agency in all kind of ways. By far the biggest culprit are cut-scenes, especially when they take away control at scary moments when the player's actions should matter the most. Another problem is connected with the open world entry above and the player constantly being fed where to go and what to do.
The way to go forward here is to make sure that the player is involved in all actions that take place. The scenes that are so often left out (and replaced by cutscenes) are often vital aspects of the horror experience. Whenever possible, the playing should be doing instead of simply watching.
8) Reflection
The video game medium can better than any other give sense of responsibility. If something, caused by the protagonist, happens on the screen then the player has been part of that. This opens up for the game to be able to reflect itself upon the player and to make players think about themselves while playing. Games have been trying to do this in the past, but I do not think it has come very far yet. So called moral choices are very common in games, but are hampered by being obvious predefined selections (chose A, B or C) and by being connected to the game dynamics (making the choice more about what is best for the player stats wise). I think that the choices need to come out as much more organic for the player to truly feel as if they have caused them. To be able to do this a strong sense of agency (as mentioned in the previous entry) must be achieved and the player must truly feel like it was their own choice (which ties into the "open world"-entry above).
I also think that this can be taken a lot further than simply testing the player's ethics. It can put player in very uncomfortable situations and to really make them evaluate themselves as human beings. The game could also lure them into mind states that they never thought they had in them. It can explore the nature of good and evil and similar subjects in away that would be impossible other medium. In the end this can lead to some really personal and terrifying experiences.
9) Implications
What really brings some horror home is how it has some kind of implications in real life. This can be something like the fear of TV-sets that Ring manages to achieve, or the bleak and disturbing universe that Lovecraft's stories paint. Elements like these are almost entirely missing from video games and again it ties into other entries on the list. Normality is probably the most important, and if we are able to achieve that it will be much easier to tie stuff of the game into everyday life. A game that can achieve this successfully takes the horror to a new level, by being something that the player carries with them long after having put down the controller.
10) Human interaction
The final entry will also be the hardest one: to bring human drama into the game's actions. Most horror in other media does not have the phenomena/situation per se as its focus, but instead its effect on people. The Exorcist is a great example of this, and so is The Shining. However, in video-games the main actions still revolve around inanimate objects or brainless foes. By having the player's actions being directly tied to other people, the horror gets so much more personal and intense.
Achieving this is not an easy task though. My opinion is that it is not a technical problem, but one of design and to place a larger burden on the player's imagination. Simulating a fully (or at least seemingly) sentient human being is a really hard problem. Simple solutions like dialog trees come often out as stiff and prefabricated. Instead one should go the route of simple actions, like Ico for instance, and build upon that by being vague and hinting instead of trying replicate a book or movie. Exactly how to go about is an open question, but the any steps closer to success can mean a lot of the horror experience.
End Notes
That concludes my 10 steps for better horror games. It will be fun to see if they are still valid 10 years from now or not. If you have any other ideas on how to evolve horror games, please say so in the comments!
Progress Report: World of Warcraft - Eastern Plaguelands
Reporting on games as I play them
The Eastern Plaguelands counts as the first zone that Eastern Kingdoms questers will encounter where both Alliance and Horde players will encounter the exact same zone as there is not a single quest in the zone that is specific to either faction, nor even any real members of either faction. Continuing from the first considerable interaction with the Argent Crusade in the Western Plaguelands, the Eastern Plaguelands has the players encountering and joining Fiona's caravan as they make their way across the Eastern Plaguelands, working with the Argent Crusade to fight off the remnant of the Scourge that still infests the land.
The storyline both benefits and suffers from the effective removal of faction conflict as it helps the zone really focus on its own story, providing some real characters who actually develop a little. However, it effectively removes your own character from being anything more than someone who is watching the story of Fiona's caravan and participating by running errands. Furthermore, just like the Eastern Plaguelands, there is a little bit of a disconnect in having the Forsaken work so willingly with the Argent Crusade, if you're coming from that storyline. Other than that, the introduction to the characters and their particular story, simple as it is, is probably the best thing in the Eastern Kingdoms since Kingslayer Orkus in the Hillsbrad Foothills, with some of the interaction and storytelling on the wagon rides between Fiona, Tarenar and Gidwin being modestly amusing, but having tons more character than anyone following Orkus.
Because of the focus on the Crusade versus the Scourge remnants, as well as how Tarenar and Gidwin are trying to join the Crusade, even most of the side quests actually feel fairly woven into the story and the whole zone's episodic nature as the caravan gathers some allies gives it almost a feeling of being in an interactive fantasy-set Cowboy Bebop, although the quality of storytelling is leagues behind the legendary anime. But even compared to the disjointed Western Plaguelands, the quality of storytelling in the Eastern Plaguelands is vastly improved. The variety of gameplay is a little weaker, with most of the quests tending towards kill and fetch quests, although you have some company in the form of some of your fellow caravan travelers joining you on some of them, and that does make the Eastern Plaguelands a little weaker and several of the storylines could use a lot more grounding, especially around the fate of the Scarlet Brotherhood. Plus, the post-Death Knight Scarlet Brotherhood area is completely barren and could use a little something, perhaps like continuing combat between the two factions and having some Death Knight representatives to quest for and interact with on their side of the field.
In terms of the environment, the Eastern Plaguelands is probably the most distinctive in comparison to the mostly forest-hills themes that we saw in the previous lands simply because the land has been corrupted, turning a sickly brown and red with giant mushrooms all over the place and once you reach Plaguewood, that gets even more sickly and purple. The zone also plays host to the dungeon Stratholme, which is just slightly higher in level than its surrounding area, but isn't otherwise poorly placed and is certainly thematically correct, even if no longer really feeling woven into the questing and leveling experience.
This level range means that the final types of rewards for questing are starting to show up here, like upgraded armor types and trinkets, meaning that the 40's are the conclusion of the introduction to the world of Warcraft. When you finish enjoying the modest story of the Eastern Plaguelands, some goblins offer you a rocket-ride to the Badlands as the next stop for Horde and Alliance characters questing in the Eastern Kingdoms. As far as the zone goes, the Eastern Plaguelands are certainly more rewarding than the previous three zones and probably sits alongside Hillsbrad Foothills for the mixed up degrees of fun and storytelling. The Argent focus does help the story be much tighter, but it also really pulls away from feeling much of the "war" in Warcraft as there's little to distinguish an Alliance or Horde member in these parts and you don't see any of the story relating to your respective factions or races, leaving a sad disconnect from the larger story that was being told. Furthermore, with the threat of the Lich King gone, the stakes simply don't seem very high for the zone, with the Crusade being all over the place, making it feel more like a clean-up operation than a trembling defense of the last vestiges of free life in the area.
But it's still a step up from what we've been seeing. I'm hoping the Badlands, with its goblins will be able to keep up to its level or exceed it.
Links:
- Game website
Zone Index:
Unconventional Design Tips
The general advice for upstarting developers seem to be to focus on mechanics, building fast a prototype, getting the core game fun and and so. For instance CliffyB did so at GDC 2012. This is not bad per se, but it is really not the only way to make games and usually, and this is the issue, result in the same kind of experiences. So to create a counterweight to this, I decided to make my own list of design advice. Here goes:
Build top-down
Find some core mechanic of controlling and interacting with the game, be that sidescrolling shooter, point and click or whatnot and then focus on the big picture. What feelings should game create, what is the theme, what kind of message should the game get across? This means creating an overarching structure for the game first, and then when you start designing the mechanics, levels, etc you make sure that it goes along with this. By doing so you can design games that try and convey things not possible over shorter time spans. It lets you control build-up and emotional journey to a much greater degree.
Design and create chronologically
Try and see the development process as a very extended playthrough of the game. By designing and producing the initial level/area/etc first you get a better feel for the player's journey through the game. This make it easier to understand the how the holistic experience will play out, and it allows you to always base later levels/areas/etc upon what the player's frame of find (as it is formed by the previous experiences) is at that point.
Of course you can still go back and change things as needed, and this is often required later. But you want to stick with the chronological structure until as much as possible of the game is completed.
Do not care about fun
First of, despite what some might say, fun is a very specific word and leaves out many type of experiences. For instance very few people would call "Schindler's List" fun. Hence you should not use fun, unless you are specifically after creating a "fun time". A better word to use is "engaging" which can be used to describe the quality of anything depressing dramas and lighthearted comedies.
Second, what you want to care about are your high-level goals. The most vital part is that anything you add to the videogame serve these. If making them fun help this purpose, then by all means make them fun. But if you want the player to be part of a dark and disturbing journey, then fun is most likely not what you want to aim for.
Proper assets early
Art assets such as a graphics, music and sound effects are far more important than what some might argue. Not all videogame ideas can be properly evaluated by using simple blocks and beeps. What the player sees and hears has a great impact on how they can relate to the game. Sometimes mechanics that at first seem really crappy, can start to shine once higher quality assets are used. If you want the player to experience a story by moving through an environment, then you need to have the audio-visual feedback that immerse them in that.
This does not have to mean that full production quality assets are needed and it is not always easy to know when your prototype looks and sounds good enough. But if make sure to keep in mind that the underlying system is not everything, then that is one step in the right direction.
Diversity in the world, not game core
Do not think that everything you want to represent in the game needs to be inside the core mechanics. Instead, keep the mechanics simple and then let the world do the work in delivering a wider experience. For instance in Limbo, there are only a few core actions available for the player, yet the game keeps the activities varied and unique through out the game.
This is the hard way of designing games as you cannot simply extrapolate from a prototype, but the end result is a deep experience that is easy to get into.
Do it as short as possible
Do not make a game that is the best value possible. Let the videogames say what you want it to and then STOP. Do not try and drag sections out for no real reason. In the end what you want to create is a product that delivers your high level purposes in the best way possible.
This is also a legit business choice as you do not compete with other time consuming videogames. If your game does not take up huge amounts of time and yet gives the player a coherent and fulfilling experience, there is a bigger chance they will have time and motivation to give it a go. I would also rather see a world with many smaller interesting experiences than long ones whose only motive is to eat as much time as they possibly can.
There you go! Now of course these tips are not some ancient wisdom that lead you to the path of glory. One must always try and figure out the best process for the type of game you want to make. But what I hope this does is to show any aspiring developer that there is more ways to create videogames than the conventional ones. At Frictional Games we pretty much follow the above and have managed stay in business for over five years and are currently financially stable. So what I just said are tips that have been tried in practice.
If you know any other tips that goes against the "fun mechanics are everything" line of thinking, do share!
Build top-down
Find some core mechanic of controlling and interacting with the game, be that sidescrolling shooter, point and click or whatnot and then focus on the big picture. What feelings should game create, what is the theme, what kind of message should the game get across? This means creating an overarching structure for the game first, and then when you start designing the mechanics, levels, etc you make sure that it goes along with this. By doing so you can design games that try and convey things not possible over shorter time spans. It lets you control build-up and emotional journey to a much greater degree.
Design and create chronologically
Try and see the development process as a very extended playthrough of the game. By designing and producing the initial level/area/etc first you get a better feel for the player's journey through the game. This make it easier to understand the how the holistic experience will play out, and it allows you to always base later levels/areas/etc upon what the player's frame of find (as it is formed by the previous experiences) is at that point.
Of course you can still go back and change things as needed, and this is often required later. But you want to stick with the chronological structure until as much as possible of the game is completed.
Do not care about fun
First of, despite what some might say, fun is a very specific word and leaves out many type of experiences. For instance very few people would call "Schindler's List" fun. Hence you should not use fun, unless you are specifically after creating a "fun time". A better word to use is "engaging" which can be used to describe the quality of anything depressing dramas and lighthearted comedies.
Second, what you want to care about are your high-level goals. The most vital part is that anything you add to the videogame serve these. If making them fun help this purpose, then by all means make them fun. But if you want the player to be part of a dark and disturbing journey, then fun is most likely not what you want to aim for.
Proper assets early
Art assets such as a graphics, music and sound effects are far more important than what some might argue. Not all videogame ideas can be properly evaluated by using simple blocks and beeps. What the player sees and hears has a great impact on how they can relate to the game. Sometimes mechanics that at first seem really crappy, can start to shine once higher quality assets are used. If you want the player to experience a story by moving through an environment, then you need to have the audio-visual feedback that immerse them in that.
This does not have to mean that full production quality assets are needed and it is not always easy to know when your prototype looks and sounds good enough. But if make sure to keep in mind that the underlying system is not everything, then that is one step in the right direction.
Diversity in the world, not game core
Do not think that everything you want to represent in the game needs to be inside the core mechanics. Instead, keep the mechanics simple and then let the world do the work in delivering a wider experience. For instance in Limbo, there are only a few core actions available for the player, yet the game keeps the activities varied and unique through out the game.
This is the hard way of designing games as you cannot simply extrapolate from a prototype, but the end result is a deep experience that is easy to get into.
Do it as short as possible
Do not make a game that is the best value possible. Let the videogames say what you want it to and then STOP. Do not try and drag sections out for no real reason. In the end what you want to create is a product that delivers your high level purposes in the best way possible.
This is also a legit business choice as you do not compete with other time consuming videogames. If your game does not take up huge amounts of time and yet gives the player a coherent and fulfilling experience, there is a bigger chance they will have time and motivation to give it a go. I would also rather see a world with many smaller interesting experiences than long ones whose only motive is to eat as much time as they possibly can.
There you go! Now of course these tips are not some ancient wisdom that lead you to the path of glory. One must always try and figure out the best process for the type of game you want to make. But what I hope this does is to show any aspiring developer that there is more ways to create videogames than the conventional ones. At Frictional Games we pretty much follow the above and have managed stay in business for over five years and are currently financially stable. So what I just said are tips that have been tried in practice.
If you know any other tips that goes against the "fun mechanics are everything" line of thinking, do share!
We are hiring: Script Programmer wanted!
Yet again we find ourselves in the need for adding a new member to our company. We are looking for a script programer with C++ syntax styled script language experience. We specifically use Angel Script, but experience with for example C#, UnrealScript, Javascript or other similar high level languages will do fine. The initial employment will be for a 6-8 months project, but can possibly be extended to an ongoing employment.
Your work with us will consist of writing the base implementation of the designed gameplay for each "level" in a game. This includes going over the design documentation, plan the basic needs and implement it, while keeping in mind that the script must be able to be easily improved, tweaked and added to. In addition you need to be creative and realize things missing/improvements that can be made to the script implementation. This can include going as far as having a completely new idea. It is also crucial to be able to imagine how the player might tackle each situation and add in the support needed to let the player continue the game in any manner that makes sense.
Experience with level editing, sound, music and effects implementation is a bonus attribute as you realize and understand the importance of timing and multi-step events needed to make the player interaction interesting and engaging.
Either you live in Sweden or you live in a time-zone nearby. Swedes are welcome as employees or contractors, if you are living abroad you need to be a contractor capable of invoicing. You'll be working from home, at a distance to the rest of the team (whom also works from home).
If interested in the position, please take the time to consider the following situation and respond to it by discussing problems and how to design it for an Amnesia styled type of game.
"To open a door, the player must tie a rope between it and a heavy create, and then push the crate into a hole."
Send CV, response to the situation and any additional links to previous work (as in videos, games or demos that clearly demonstrate your part in it): jobs [at] frictionalgames [dot] com.
We are mainly interested in script programing that deals with the player's interaction in the game world, the events that are triggered and the overall game experience that the script conveys to the player. This position is as much, or even more, creative as it is a need to be logical and structured. Please do not send any large attachments to our email address, instead upload and give links for downloading.
Your work with us will consist of writing the base implementation of the designed gameplay for each "level" in a game. This includes going over the design documentation, plan the basic needs and implement it, while keeping in mind that the script must be able to be easily improved, tweaked and added to. In addition you need to be creative and realize things missing/improvements that can be made to the script implementation. This can include going as far as having a completely new idea. It is also crucial to be able to imagine how the player might tackle each situation and add in the support needed to let the player continue the game in any manner that makes sense.
Experience with level editing, sound, music and effects implementation is a bonus attribute as you realize and understand the importance of timing and multi-step events needed to make the player interaction interesting and engaging.
Either you live in Sweden or you live in a time-zone nearby. Swedes are welcome as employees or contractors, if you are living abroad you need to be a contractor capable of invoicing. You'll be working from home, at a distance to the rest of the team (whom also works from home).
If interested in the position, please take the time to consider the following situation and respond to it by discussing problems and how to design it for an Amnesia styled type of game.
"To open a door, the player must tie a rope between it and a heavy create, and then push the crate into a hole."
Send CV, response to the situation and any additional links to previous work (as in videos, games or demos that clearly demonstrate your part in it): jobs [at] frictionalgames [dot] com.
We are mainly interested in script programing that deals with the player's interaction in the game world, the events that are triggered and the overall game experience that the script conveys to the player. This position is as much, or even more, creative as it is a need to be logical and structured. Please do not send any large attachments to our email address, instead upload and give links for downloading.
Inbox: Final Fantasy II
New for me
And then, the original Final Fantasy II finally showed up on the Playstation in a multi-game remake called Final Fantasy Origins, but by that point, I wasn't invested in the Playstation platform and let the game slide by for a while. However, having recently gone back and played Final Fantasy, starting with the Dawn of Souls version, but skipping along to the PSP remake, I kind of wanted to go back and check out the game that I missed so long ago and picked up a copy of the PSP version.
The PSP version (also available on iOS) is essentially the same as the Dawn of Souls version, but with cleaner, prettier graphics and another dungeon with more loot and enemies. Being on a UMD, the game does suffer from a little lag due to loading times compared to the fast-as-can-be Game Boy Advance cartridge, but I found it bearable and the higher resolution graphics were quite pretty, considering the age and format of the game. Not having played the original Famicom edition (available on Wii's virtual console, for those interested), I don't really have a point of reference to compare the remake to as the GBA and PSP versions are similar in terms of gameplay, so I'll just stick to that experience.
Final Fantasy II is actually a substantial upgrade from the original Final Fantasy in terms of story and gameplay. On the story front, the game actually features characters with personalities, however limited they might be, three of which are with you throughout the game and the fourth is a guest character that is determined by the story and will swap in and out as the game goes. The story itself is event driven and linear, although the game is still open world, so you're able to explore (if you can survive that is) and features a story about an evil empire that's trying to take over the world a small coalition of forces trying to fight back. It's very simple stuff compared to modern day RPG storylines and even quaint, but in the world of old school, early Japanese RPGs, it's exceptionally deep, especially compared to its rival series, Dragon Quest, at the time. It's not quite enough to be compelling, but it at least has one interesting twist and establishes some themes that get revisited in future titles in the series.
In terms of gameplay, Final Fantasy II respects the turn based style of the original, but guts the class and level-based system of the first and replaces it with a system that is focused on skills and stats, which increase as they are used. So, if you get hit, you have a chance of your HP and stamina going up, casting a lot of the spell "Cure" will cause it to level up, and swinging an axe will make the character's axe level go up. It's an interesting change of pace, but one that results in a bit of time being spent fighting simply to improve your characters' stats and doing some rather illogical things to achieve that, like having your characters fight each other instead of their enemies. Furthermore, it still encourages grinding and lends a bit towards making every character a super-character, strong in both magic and fighting in order to reduce weaknesses in your team and that reduces the distinction between your characters as well as guest characters, kind of making things bland from a gameplay perspective.
In terms of art, FFII isn't much of a stretch from the original in terms of style of complexity, and with the remakes, this is especially true since they were kind of built together. The PSP edition's graphics are crisp, clear and well defined, benefiting from the newer display technology, but still based on icons and so nothing that's going to take anyone's breath away. Musically, FFII continues the series' high standards for music and it's a mix of the foreign and the familiar, certainly sounding like a Final Fantasy should without overly re-treading the same music, but it's still a nice point in this version of the game.
Final Fantasy II does feel kind of unique as far as the series and even early JRPGs go, simply because of its character system, but that's not necessarily a good thing, since the system, while interesting in intention, ultimately doesn't significantly change overall gameplay. The game is also notable with the scope and execution of its story, in context, but isn't exceptionally compelling as its characters don't really have particularly interesting stories nor are they developed. Some of the guest characters are interesting, but don't get enough face time to be anything more than a tiny spark. At least the remake provides some solid graphics and sound that helps pretty up the aging game underneath. Final Fantasy II is a noticeable step up from the original and might be ahead of the pack for its era, but all the remake polish in the world don't stop the game from feeling a bit quaint and dated throwback. One that I enjoyed simply because I like these old-school style games, but I think that's the only class of gamer that will still want to go back and play this, remake or no. 7/10.
Links:
and Progress Report: World of Warcraft - Western Plaguelands
Reporting on games as I play them
After the rather unexciting zones of Arathi Highlands and The Hinterlands, the Western Plaguelands helps a little to make up for the deficiencies of the former by adding a little story, some callbacks to past experiences and a few varied experiences to help tie it together. The zone still suffers a little from a lack of cohesiveness, especially on the Horde-side questline, due to some of tenuous alliances that are made, given the nature of the Forsaken in the area. However, the conflict between the Horde, Alliance as well as the Scourge make this zone a bit more interesting, even if not as impressive as the Silverpine Forest experience or as affecting as the Hillsbrad Foothills one.
You arrive in the middle of Andorhal, a fortress in the middle of the area that is currently in the middle of a three way fight between the Alliance, Horde, and Scourge and as a Horde, you assist your side. The zone returns to phasing allowing your experience to differ from Alliance players who would undertake the other side. Along the way, you discover that your commander is old war buddies with the Alliance's death knight commander and the Battle for Andorhal remains the central (and most interesting) storyline in the zone.
However, you also assist the Forsaken is beating away the remnants of the Alliance and are curiously then tasked to aid the Argent Crusade and Cenarion Circle by the Forsaken controlling the area, which is strange given the opposing aims of the Forsaken and the two neutral parties. That does lead to a little more varied gameplay, bringing back memories of the variety in Hillsbrad Foothills, but it doesn't quite have the same kind of continued storyline or urgency that the aforementioned zone does. However, there is a moment at a destroyed Scarlet Crusade camp that echoes back to your experience in Tirisfal Glades and that's a welcome experience. If only that story element were deeper woven into the story of the Eastern Kingdoms, at least as far as the Scarlet Crusade is concerned.
Western Plaguelands isn't quite compelling, I'd say, but it is a noticeable step up from the previous two zones, especially in that it reveals a thing or two about who the Forsaken are, continuing with some of the story elements introduced in Silverpine Forest and that gives the zone a bit of greater story weight that adds a little bit more to the epic feel of the zone, like participating in a real grand story.
That doesn't mean that the zone couldn't have been better tied together in terms of story and avoiding the strange experience of having the Forsaken in such cozy cahoots with the Argent Crusade, but it still remains an improvement in experience from the past couple zones. The zone also hosts the dungeon Scholomance, but like in most of the previous zones, the dungeons no longer seem tied to the quest leveling experience, which is a little bit of a shame, considering that it leaves a piece of the map unexplored. And when it's all done, you're asked to visit the Eastern Plaguelands.
Links:
- Game website
Zone Index:
We are hiring: Environment artist wanted!
Once again, Frictional Games is hiring and this time we are looking for an environment artist. The employment will first only be a on project basis lasting about 6 - 8 months, but if all goes well it can go be turned into a proper employment.
You will be working for a small team with a big focus on finding new and innovating solutions. We want you who are not afraid to explore uncharted territory and constantly learn new things. Self-discipline and independence are also important traits as all work will be done from home.
First of all you should be able to do both nice texturing and modelling. If you have experience in building levels that is also a big plus. You should be living in Sweden or a time-zone nearby. If not living in Sweden you have to run a company and be able to invoice. You also need to have a fast and stable broadband connection.
If interested send CV and a link to portfolio to: jobs [at] frictionalgames [dot] com.
We are mainly interested in seeing artwork you have done, what projects you have been involved in and your role in them. Do not send any large files to this mail but link to the them instead.
Played: Baking Life (Facebook)
Reporting on the games I've played
Note: As of January 31, 2012, Baking Life has gone off-line and is no longer in development.
Casual social gaming has seen a meteoric rise in popularity over the past few years, especially with the rise of social networks like Facebook and the development of "new" mobile phones in the era of iOS and Android. One of the most popular forms of social gaming is the simulation game, like FarmVille, which is extremely popular on Facebook and I've had many friends try to coax me into playing. However, I've been pretty wary of the time commitments involved in playing these games, no matter how simple they seem, so I avoided them for a while.
Then PopCap Games, the maker of several puzzle and strategy games I enjoy (Plants Vs. Zombies, Zuma, Bejeweled, Peggle) purchased the company that made the simulation game, Baking Life. With PopCap pushing this game, I decided to see what drove so many friends to play these games and give Baking Life a shot. For the most part, after achieving a very high level, I wasn't particularly impressed, but I can definitely see the appeal.
The conceit of the game is that you own a little bakery and you need to bake stuff to sell to customers to make money to improve your bakery to bake more stuff to sell to more customers at greater cost so you can... you get the idea. There's not too much more to the game than there as there is really no end to the game. As you bake you will gain experience to gain levels which will let you bake a larger variety of baked goods which vary in selling price, cooking time and amount of servings. With the money you earn, you can buy different items to improve the variety of goods you can sell at once, sell coffee, and handle more guests.
The social aspect comes in that you can invite your friends to work for you for free (as your store grows you will need to hire more employees who take a cut of your profits) and friends can send you gifts from free servings of food to decorations for your store to components that you need to build or upgrade some of the equipment in your store. The more friends you have playing the more free stuff you can get. All that stuff and money comes in handy because the nicer looking your store, the more money you can earn per sale.
The gameplay is pretty dry and mechanical otherwise. You can be kept on your toes because you have to take your products out of ovens before they burn and the quicker baking recipes, but it's generally the compulsion to buy newer and fancier stuff for your store that's going to drive you and the game resembles Animal Crossing as a result. Oh, it's also a freemium game, and so you can actually spend real money in the game (well, Facebook credits) to buy premium items or upgrade your store without needing a certain number of friends to join. There is a method of getting the "Zip cash" used to buy premium items for free, but you don't get much and it takes a long time, so the game puts the pressure on you to pay up if you want a really nice store.
Presentation wise, the game has bright, bold and colorful flash graphics with a lot of variety when it comes to how you can dress up your store and different seasonal and holiday items available at appropriate times of year. While the game can chug a little on slower machines, overall, it's still not a hugely taxing game. The game has music, but after listening to it for a good long while, I got tired of it and turned it off. I also wanted to turn off the sound effects too, as they are kind of loud and without internal controls to adjust volume, but I sometimes needed the heads up when a baked good was done, so I usually kept it on, to some amount of frustration.
Overall, after the initial expansion and spiffing up my store, the lack of any real development in the game left me quite tired of the game, although I did keep playing to reach the self-driven goal of baking every recipe in the game once. I also didn't appreciate how earnest the game was about trying to get you to spam your friends into playing it and spam your Facebook wall with posts about it. So, while the game might have been a little interesting at first, it's very limited in dimension and hardly interactive in a meaningful way. However, the game's colorful graphics and ability to build your store as you see fit would probably be a draw for more expressive players who love to customize things and don't mind dry repetitive tasks to do so. But that's certainly not going to be enough to impress me and the frustrating social and freemium aspects of the game took a lot away from its limited enjoyment.
This might mean I'm simply the wrong type of gamer for these social simulation games and my problem isn't with Baking Life in particular, but the entire model of business. So, PopCap Games or no, I can't endorse Baking Life (or any of its similarly oriented social simulation competitors, especially those that encourage spamming). There is a segment of the population that will enjoy this, but I'm not it. 4/10.
Links:
- Game Facebook
Progress Report: World of Warcraft - The Hinterlands
Reporting on games as I play them
The Hinterlands lies just north of the Arathi Highlands and is the next area that Eastern Kingdoms questers will encounter. The Hinterlands was particularly less visited before the Shattering as those questing in the Eastern Kingdoms would get breadcrumb quests down to Stranglethorn Vale after completing Arathi Highlands, so it's a zone that I had little experience with, except during holidays when I would run up there to take care of whatever meaningless tasks I needed for the achievements. Although the revamp of the zone does improve its accessibility and flow, like the Highlands before it, it doesn't really have an interesting story or memorable moments and proves to be a rather dry experience.
The basic story in the Hinterlands is about trolls, especially if you're Horde as you align yourself with the Revantusk trolls as well as a group of Forsaken who are both battling the Vilebranch trolls. Along the way you do a lot of random killing and fetching for the locals and that's about it. There is a bit of story sprinkled into the region as the trolls in their huge temples are trying to call down the spider goddess, Shadra, and that's about the most interesting the region gets.
The problem with this is, that like the Horde presence in the Highlands, there's just nothing really compelling about what's going on in the Hinterlands, nor any connection between what questers experienced in the Highlands and what they experience in the Hinterlands, making it all seem even more like a bunch of randomly assembled quests. At least the conflict between the Horde and Alliance in the region (via their Wildhammer dwarf and Revantusk troll proxies) is actually seen a little, but for a contested zone, the Alliance and Horde are surprisingly at peace.
At least the zone doesn't feature any group quests as those made the rather dead zones of Hillsbrad Foothills and Arathi Highlands difficult to complete. However the Hinterlands does contain a rare world-drop quest that completionists might tear their hair out while trying to acquire, killing everything in the zone perhaps five times over to find. Although the final fight of the zone is mildly interesting, overall, the Hinterlands is much like the Arathi Highlands in terms of lacking flavor and story and is not a compelling experience. On the plus side, when you're done, you get sent right into a much more dynamic experience in the Western Plaguelands.
Links:
- Game website
Zone Index:
Inbox: Munchkin 3 - Clerical Errors
New for me
The advertised "new" items to Clerical Errors is both a new race, Gnomes, and a new class, Bards. Overall, both are fairly powerful additions to the game and should give players more options in terms of the race and class they'd like to be. Because of the amount of addition the game makes, a number of new versions of old cards are also added to keep the ratios in the game appropriate. I don't know how successful it is as in our plays through the game we've encountered some uneven distribution of cards here and there, but that might simply be on account of the luck of the draw.
The sense of comedy in Clerical Errors is still pretty amusing, frequently making puns "Tequila Mockingbird" or fun of fantasy conventions "Chainmail Bikini" and the illustrations are modestly amusing too. Sometimes we did find that our hands were bloated with items we couldn't use because of the specificity of class and race, but again, that might just be a matter of the luck of the draw.
Overall, Clerical Errors is a decent addition to the game. It doesn't really add anything new, but some of the cards added (especially many of the new curses) do add some spark to the way that the game is played and it's all done with good fun in mind. Even though it won't add dimension, Clerical Errors is still good for those wanting to add some more options to their Munchkin game. 7/10.
Links:
Narrative not a game mechanic?
Introduction
I just stumbled upon Raph Koster's "Narrative is not a game mechanic" and found that it contains some stuff that I do not really agree with. Now, thinking somebody on the internet is wrong happens all the time, but I think this article brings up some stuff that warrants a reply. While it has up a few good points, it also contains views on a few concept that I think can be quite damaging when trying to expand upon the medium of videogames.
"Game"
The word game is a very broad and fuzzy one. I can refer to boardgames, gambling, politics, drug dealing, sports and whatnot. For more part of the the article, Raph seems to be talking about videogames (given the black box analogy and that he specifically says "racing videogame"), but then later on slot machines and choose-your-own-stories are used as examples. Now one can see this as just using simply making a point, but I think the unclarity leads to an important issue: Videogames are very different from other games like chess, football, etc even though they are often lumped together.
The main reason why videogames are different is because they strictly impose rules upon the player. It is not really possible to play a videogame wrong, whereas playing football or chess (the physical versions) the wrong way are very easy. A videogame is more than a few game-rules, it is every single rule that you can possibly experience. Even basic laws of nature like friction and gravity play an essential role in a videogame. Videogames are not about following a specific rule-set, they are about being present inside a virtual world. The only way to really play a videogame incorrectly is to change the very fabric of its virtual reality, or to find some kind of exploitable flaw. (This is not strictly true, as one could say playing Mario and only running back and forth the first few pixels is not the correct way to play it, but I think I make my point).
In case you want more discussion on this, Chris Deleon goes into the issue a bit deeper here. My main point here is just that when discussing videogames, it is very common that all other kinds of games get thrown into the mix, and that is exactly what happens here. This does not mean that we should try and learn from other kind of games, but when we want to talk about the strength and weaknesses of our medium, we need to be clear what it is we are really talking about.
(I know I do say "game" when I really mean "videogame" from time to time. I hope I have become more clear on what I mean in later posts though. Also note that I sometimes simply use "game", after having just said "videogame" to make the text less repetitive. With that said, I hope I do not get too hammered because of improper usage :) )
A series of problems
This is something that have annoyed me for some time. It is the idea that videogames must pose some kind of challenge to the player. It leads to all kind issues, most importantly the idea that one needs to have trial-and-error in videogames. In my mind it is this kind of thinking what has been holding back videogames for quite some time.
In Raph's article, this thinking is best exemplified by:
"Cut the problem inside the black box, and you have a slideshow."
Once you get into this kind of mindset, I feel that there is so much you are missing out on. For instance, Amnesia would not have been possible to create if we had not let go of the belief that every meaningful interaction must have some kind of problem and challenge at heart. It is also a statement that makes videogames like Dear Esther impossible to create. It even dismisses a lot of what makes Silent Hill so great as bad videogame design. Needless to say, I think this is a very silly statement to make.
My view on the core of videogames is not that should to provide us with problems, but to immerse us in engaging virtual worlds. Sometimes problems are useful for doing this and sometimes not. But they are never what lies at the core of the experience.
Feedback is for fun
The way the article talks about feedback (graphics, sound effects, etc) is in a very simplistic manner: They are simply there to enhance the underlying mechanics. I believe that feedback, in any sensory form, can be a lot more than that. I think that visuals, etc can lie at the front and the mechanics can be a way of exploring them, hence you tweak the gameplay according to your visuals instead of the other way around.
Instead of seeing feedback as rewards for problem-solving, I think we should see them as a way to increase the feeling of presence in our virtual worlds. It is the ability to "kick back" that makes the virtual worlds of videogames so compelling and so different from other media like novels and film. If we see feedback as a tool of immersion, we can also stop seeing all interaction as problems. I think this brings forward a more inclusive view of what a videogame can be and is also much better at forming a platform for evolving the medium than the old narrow view.
"Narrative"
I think there is a quite a confusion with words in the article. Narrative, in film theory, is how the story is told (how characters and plot are put together). When Raph talks about narrative in the sense of choose-your-own-adventure games, he is really referring to the plot. It is not narrative, but plot (ie some very specific events), that act has the reward for the player whenever they provide input.
It is much better to say that narrative is the subjective entirety of the session. This also goes along with Chris Bateman's view that all games tell a story and more interestingly that all art are games of some form. One could also take the view (which I do not) that narrative is, like in film, the way in which the story (plot and characters) are told, in which case narrative would be an umbrella term for game mechanics. In any case I do not think Raph's usage of the word is correct and a better title for his post would be "Plot is not a game mechanic". By saying it this way, I think the main point gets no stranger than "animations/sound/etc are not gameplay mechanics".
This might seem like a useless discussion in semantics, but I honestly think it is quite important. Right now, story, plot and narrative are mixed up to mean pretty much whatever, making discussions like "should our game focus on story" pointless. Language is our main tool for thinking, and if we cannot have a proper terminology, we will not be able to think properly.
The article's example from Batman: Arkham City is to me a very clear example of this kind of bad thinking. By saying that the "video of the Joker playing on a television set" is a narrative element, but then dismissing the entire climb that came before it as such, one is really missing out on the strengths of the videogame medium. For me I the Joker video is pure plot, a bit of needed exposition and not what is interesting. What is interesting is the climb up the cathedral. Here the player takes on the role of becoming Batman and, while performing interactive actions, forming a very compelling narrative.
As I have written before, in order to improve story-telling in games we need to consider stories beyond their plots.
End notes
Most of this post has been about meaning of words and of how to approach some concepts, but I hope that I still showed that it is a very important issue. Videogame is a medium that have grown from simplistic simulations, arcade machines and boardgames. This legacy has put its mark on a lot of nowadays thoughts on design, many of which are holding the medium back. The only way to move forward is to reassess this line of thinking and remove ingrained preconceptions of what a videogame is and needs to be. Not until we break the bonds of the past can we freely explore the future.
I just stumbled upon Raph Koster's "Narrative is not a game mechanic" and found that it contains some stuff that I do not really agree with. Now, thinking somebody on the internet is wrong happens all the time, but I think this article brings up some stuff that warrants a reply. While it has up a few good points, it also contains views on a few concept that I think can be quite damaging when trying to expand upon the medium of videogames.
"Game"
The word game is a very broad and fuzzy one. I can refer to boardgames, gambling, politics, drug dealing, sports and whatnot. For more part of the the article, Raph seems to be talking about videogames (given the black box analogy and that he specifically says "racing videogame"), but then later on slot machines and choose-your-own-stories are used as examples. Now one can see this as just using simply making a point, but I think the unclarity leads to an important issue: Videogames are very different from other games like chess, football, etc even though they are often lumped together.
The main reason why videogames are different is because they strictly impose rules upon the player. It is not really possible to play a videogame wrong, whereas playing football or chess (the physical versions) the wrong way are very easy. A videogame is more than a few game-rules, it is every single rule that you can possibly experience. Even basic laws of nature like friction and gravity play an essential role in a videogame. Videogames are not about following a specific rule-set, they are about being present inside a virtual world. The only way to really play a videogame incorrectly is to change the very fabric of its virtual reality, or to find some kind of exploitable flaw. (This is not strictly true, as one could say playing Mario and only running back and forth the first few pixels is not the correct way to play it, but I think I make my point).
In case you want more discussion on this, Chris Deleon goes into the issue a bit deeper here. My main point here is just that when discussing videogames, it is very common that all other kinds of games get thrown into the mix, and that is exactly what happens here. This does not mean that we should try and learn from other kind of games, but when we want to talk about the strength and weaknesses of our medium, we need to be clear what it is we are really talking about.
(I know I do say "game" when I really mean "videogame" from time to time. I hope I have become more clear on what I mean in later posts though. Also note that I sometimes simply use "game", after having just said "videogame" to make the text less repetitive. With that said, I hope I do not get too hammered because of improper usage :) )
A series of problems
This is something that have annoyed me for some time. It is the idea that videogames must pose some kind of challenge to the player. It leads to all kind issues, most importantly the idea that one needs to have trial-and-error in videogames. In my mind it is this kind of thinking what has been holding back videogames for quite some time.
In Raph's article, this thinking is best exemplified by:
"Cut the problem inside the black box, and you have a slideshow."
Once you get into this kind of mindset, I feel that there is so much you are missing out on. For instance, Amnesia would not have been possible to create if we had not let go of the belief that every meaningful interaction must have some kind of problem and challenge at heart. It is also a statement that makes videogames like Dear Esther impossible to create. It even dismisses a lot of what makes Silent Hill so great as bad videogame design. Needless to say, I think this is a very silly statement to make.
My view on the core of videogames is not that should to provide us with problems, but to immerse us in engaging virtual worlds. Sometimes problems are useful for doing this and sometimes not. But they are never what lies at the core of the experience.
Feedback is for fun
The way the article talks about feedback (graphics, sound effects, etc) is in a very simplistic manner: They are simply there to enhance the underlying mechanics. I believe that feedback, in any sensory form, can be a lot more than that. I think that visuals, etc can lie at the front and the mechanics can be a way of exploring them, hence you tweak the gameplay according to your visuals instead of the other way around.
Instead of seeing feedback as rewards for problem-solving, I think we should see them as a way to increase the feeling of presence in our virtual worlds. It is the ability to "kick back" that makes the virtual worlds of videogames so compelling and so different from other media like novels and film. If we see feedback as a tool of immersion, we can also stop seeing all interaction as problems. I think this brings forward a more inclusive view of what a videogame can be and is also much better at forming a platform for evolving the medium than the old narrow view.
"Narrative"
I think there is a quite a confusion with words in the article. Narrative, in film theory, is how the story is told (how characters and plot are put together). When Raph talks about narrative in the sense of choose-your-own-adventure games, he is really referring to the plot. It is not narrative, but plot (ie some very specific events), that act has the reward for the player whenever they provide input.
It is much better to say that narrative is the subjective entirety of the session. This also goes along with Chris Bateman's view that all games tell a story and more interestingly that all art are games of some form. One could also take the view (which I do not) that narrative is, like in film, the way in which the story (plot and characters) are told, in which case narrative would be an umbrella term for game mechanics. In any case I do not think Raph's usage of the word is correct and a better title for his post would be "Plot is not a game mechanic". By saying it this way, I think the main point gets no stranger than "animations/sound/etc are not gameplay mechanics".
This might seem like a useless discussion in semantics, but I honestly think it is quite important. Right now, story, plot and narrative are mixed up to mean pretty much whatever, making discussions like "should our game focus on story" pointless. Language is our main tool for thinking, and if we cannot have a proper terminology, we will not be able to think properly.
The article's example from Batman: Arkham City is to me a very clear example of this kind of bad thinking. By saying that the "video of the Joker playing on a television set" is a narrative element, but then dismissing the entire climb that came before it as such, one is really missing out on the strengths of the videogame medium. For me I the Joker video is pure plot, a bit of needed exposition and not what is interesting. What is interesting is the climb up the cathedral. Here the player takes on the role of becoming Batman and, while performing interactive actions, forming a very compelling narrative.
As I have written before, in order to improve story-telling in games we need to consider stories beyond their plots.
End notes
Most of this post has been about meaning of words and of how to approach some concepts, but I hope that I still showed that it is a very important issue. Videogame is a medium that have grown from simplistic simulations, arcade machines and boardgames. This legacy has put its mark on a lot of nowadays thoughts on design, many of which are holding the medium back. The only way to move forward is to reassess this line of thinking and remove ingrained preconceptions of what a videogame is and needs to be. Not until we break the bonds of the past can we freely explore the future.
Best of 2011
Since 2012 is here I thought it might be a good time for a short best of 2011 list! Note that only games that have been released during 2011 are included (and not games that I have played last year). So without further ado, here are my top picks from the past year (starting in reverse order, to make things exciting!):
3 - Portal 2
What I liked the most about Portal 2 were these little moments where you really felt immersed in the world. For example if you hesitate to follow Wheatly's advice and a make a not very safe looking leap down, he will try to persuade you using hilarious quips. These (unfortunately sparse) moments created this kind of special connection to characters you rarely see in games. There also exists a very strong sense of place in Portal 2. I think this is mostly created by how the dialog and environments come together and interact. Unfortunately most of this is in the first third or so and the game becomes more and more drawn out during the end. There is also a lot of really lackluster puzzle sections where you are simply trying to find the right area to place a portal. Despite these short comings, Portal 2 had me quite engaged and proved to be one of the better experiences of last year.
2 - To the Moon
I think the most interesting aspect of this game is how it in some ways is a culmination of a 25 years JPRPG pixel dramaturgy. The emotional displays of the simplistic sprites are very limited, but are used to perfection and creates a very powerful and mature narration. The game also feature very interesting take on puzzles and action. Sometimes it is possible to decide how much challenge you want and at other times the activities are irrelevant and simply there to make you more connected to the world. Unfortunately this is at its best at the start of the game and it gets progressively worse. The end even contains a terrible action sequence.
What really brings the game home though, is how To the Moon manages to bring up mature themes in a way that is extremely rare in videogames. These play out in fairly non-interactive situations and thus are not any kind of revolution. But simply seeing a game where the core experience is a meditation on love, relationships, memory and what is really important in life, makes me really happy and hopeful.
1- Sword and Sworcery
This is by far my favorite game from last year. The videogame's strong focus on making something that blends interaction, music and visuals creates a really engaging experience. This is truly a game that aims to take you inside a another world and it is all about living it instead of trying to beat it. Another thing I really liked about it is how the game does not force you into continuing playing it. Sword and Sworcery actually explicitly tells you to take a rest and come back later between chapters. In an industry where it is all about getting players hooked and never stop playing, this is extremly refreshing to see. Combined with this, the game also asks you to reflect upon it and encourages the player to not just have a shallow, addictive experience. I really hope to see more of this! The game is not without flaws of course. There are lots of problems with the often annoying combat, repetitive puzzles, the twitter integration did not feel needed and some of the writing feels a bit too quirky and lazy. Still, Sword and Sworcery is quite the thing and I urge all of everyone to give it a go.
Now I am interested to hear which 3 games from 2011 were your favorites!
3 - Portal 2
What I liked the most about Portal 2 were these little moments where you really felt immersed in the world. For example if you hesitate to follow Wheatly's advice and a make a not very safe looking leap down, he will try to persuade you using hilarious quips. These (unfortunately sparse) moments created this kind of special connection to characters you rarely see in games. There also exists a very strong sense of place in Portal 2. I think this is mostly created by how the dialog and environments come together and interact. Unfortunately most of this is in the first third or so and the game becomes more and more drawn out during the end. There is also a lot of really lackluster puzzle sections where you are simply trying to find the right area to place a portal. Despite these short comings, Portal 2 had me quite engaged and proved to be one of the better experiences of last year.2 - To the Moon
I think the most interesting aspect of this game is how it in some ways is a culmination of a 25 years JPRPG pixel dramaturgy. The emotional displays of the simplistic sprites are very limited, but are used to perfection and creates a very powerful and mature narration. The game also feature very interesting take on puzzles and action. Sometimes it is possible to decide how much challenge you want and at other times the activities are irrelevant and simply there to make you more connected to the world. Unfortunately this is at its best at the start of the game and it gets progressively worse. The end even contains a terrible action sequence.What really brings the game home though, is how To the Moon manages to bring up mature themes in a way that is extremely rare in videogames. These play out in fairly non-interactive situations and thus are not any kind of revolution. But simply seeing a game where the core experience is a meditation on love, relationships, memory and what is really important in life, makes me really happy and hopeful.
1- Sword and Sworcery
This is by far my favorite game from last year. The videogame's strong focus on making something that blends interaction, music and visuals creates a really engaging experience. This is truly a game that aims to take you inside a another world and it is all about living it instead of trying to beat it. Another thing I really liked about it is how the game does not force you into continuing playing it. Sword and Sworcery actually explicitly tells you to take a rest and come back later between chapters. In an industry where it is all about getting players hooked and never stop playing, this is extremly refreshing to see. Combined with this, the game also asks you to reflect upon it and encourages the player to not just have a shallow, addictive experience. I really hope to see more of this! The game is not without flaws of course. There are lots of problems with the often annoying combat, repetitive puzzles, the twitter integration did not feel needed and some of the writing feels a bit too quirky and lazy. Still, Sword and Sworcery is quite the thing and I urge all of everyone to give it a go.Now I am interested to hear which 3 games from 2011 were your favorites!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)