Selling an Experience

by Steve Bowler on September 22, 2008 · 12 comments

in design

For awhile I’ve been struggling to find a way to describe what I feel has changed about game design in recent years.  My own appreciation of games has been changing, and for awhile I thought it was just me.  I’ve been finding games like F.E.A.R. or HAZE or the idea behind Fracture as tired cliches.  Some call them “FPS with a Gimmick,” but I think a better description of them might just simply be “last-gen design.”

A lot of times game designs wind up coming from the “brainchildren” of folks who have no business designing games.  You’ll get the “this is Doom meets GTA” type brainstorm sessions, where they’re really just taking two separate concepts and forcing them together with band-aids and tape.  Sure, they might work, but the problem with them is that they have no vision.  They rely on the backbones of previous experiences that players have had, and are trying to tell the player “we’re like this other game you like,” and the reason why it’s done so much still today is that this worked to great success in previous generations.

When you get right down to the brass tacks, there isn’t a whole lot of separation between games like Doom, or Marathon, Dark Forces or even Duke Nukem.  And yet, I played them all, every one of them, to completion.  I couldn’t get enough of the First Person Shooter concept.  The idea was enthralling, and anyone who gave even a competent stab at the genre got my money.  They sold me an experience.  Yes, yes, before someone jumps down my throat in the comments, their universes are fairly different, but in the end, I got to play the part of “Guy With The Gun,” and back then, that’s really all I needed.  Their roles didn’t really extend much beyond that description.  It was Guy With the Gun meets Star Wars or Guy With the Gun meets 80′s Action Movie.

But nowadays it just isn’t enough.  You can’t sell me a game that’s “FPS with terrain editing.”  I don’t want to play “FPS with Adrenaline.”  I’m not even remotely interested in “FPS with a Horror Flair.”

I want to be poured into a role.  Give me an environment so compelling I can’t resist it.  I no longer care if it’s FPS or 3rdPS or even 2ndPS if you can figure out how to make that convincing.  Let me experience something I could never hope to experience in real life, or at the very least something I haven’t experienced in a game before.  This is where I think design is heading, at least successful design is heading insofar as games are concerned for the future generation.

Games like Mirror’s Edge, where you are a rooftop parkour courier.  Sure, you can argue it’s “FPS with parkour,” but you’d be undersimplifying the example.  It’s not really even an FPS since it’s not meant to be a shooter.  It’s really more of an FPP (First Person Parkourer).  Honestly, I’m not really all that sure I’m going to buy the game (I’m a jaded game designer who sees Mirror’s Edge as a Parkour level puzzler that doesn’t seem as engaging or complex as Portal, and my play time is limited), but I’m excited that the designers aren’t phoning it in and just making it an FPS that has environment interaction in it.  They’re really pushing the idea that you’re a Parkour expert first, and the shooting comes second, if you even choose to shoot at all, as it’s not a core requirement for beating the game.

Rock Band, while it seems obvious, sells you the fantasy of performing in your very own rock band.  It took the core concept of being a Guitar Hero and elevated it to an entirely new level, incorporating friends in a way that transcends the idea of co-op, making each friend you were playing with a sort of medic with shock paddles whose job it is to rescue the weakest player of the group.  It incorporates team gameplay in a way that’s so hidden most people don’t even realize they’re still playing a game, the experience of rocking out is that compelling.

Even Assassin’s Creed, which I’ve criticized heavily in the past, succeeds where other games haven’t previously, in attempting to give you the experience of being an assassin in the medieval era.  It doesn’t attempt to be a 3rdPS with stealth, or even a 3rd Person Brawler with stealth.  It defines its role as an escape artist with a knife on a mission.  Combat is possibly intentionally difficult, because they are truly attempting to reward hiding in crowds, and avoiding public exposure/capture.  The game plays at its best when you’re stalking down guards and killing them silently amongst thirty or more people in a busy city street, and no one’s the wiser that an assassin just slipped a knife through a man’s ribs right there, a foot away from them.

Bioshock, while lacking in innovating gameplay, sells you the experience of being in an underwater city trapped in the past.  It’s not just the first person cutscenes and the passive acceptance of the larger story through the cassette decks.  From the opening scene you are thrust into what is possibly the most believeable yet impossibly fictional world ever created.  We believed that we were in an underwater city, as much as any media could convince us, and I think most of us kept playing it just so we could see what came next.  I still can see the suitcases falling down through the water, the windows slowly leaking in sea-water.

It seems that the more successful the experience is, the more successful the game’s sales are.  Even games like Madden have transformed from a 2D sprite on a football field to an experience that rivals watching an NFL game on your TV.  From the playcalling, to the coach simulation, to even the UI signage which matches the ESPN look, you are in control of your NFL fantasy experience.

So it was with a weary heart that I realized why, exactly, that I no longer care about the idea of a game like Duke Nukem Forever coming to light.  From the limited amount of video that I’ve seen of it, and the core foundation of what Duke Nukem is (FPS with Campy 80′s Action Hero Overtones).  It’s a last-gen game concept attempting to live in a next-gen world of design.  I would no sooner be excited to play it than I would peg my jeans or wear a Member’s Only jacket.

I’ve already experienced those things, and I want to enjoy new experiences.

As designers, could we all agree to eschew the idea of “Genre with a _____?”  I think the consumer has spoken through their wallet that they’re not really that interested in those concepts anymore.

Let’s no longer think in terms of selling them a game.  Let’s instead think of selling them an experience.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 12 comments }

Wait, I’m Confused

by Steve Bowler on September 21, 2008 · 3 comments

in general

How does playing a gig sponsored by Hot Topic make me lose fans if I’m wearing dark eyeshadow, black lipstick, and wearing black gauged earplugs?  Granted, I’m more rock than goth looking, but come on.

Was it because they made us play That’s What You Get?  I mean, I’m really out of touch with what the goth kids like, but that song doesn’t sound anything remotely like grunge and/or goth.  We didn’t pick it.  Shouldn’t the fans boycott Hot Topic?  They didn’t boycott the last five times we were forced to cover it…

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 3 comments }

Making Tiger Perfect

by Steve Bowler on September 15, 2008 · 3 comments

in uncategorized

I finally got my copy of Tiger 09 in the mail on Saturday, sat down to play it, and wondered where the preceding 6 hours had gone.  Simply put, this is the most amazing golf game out there since Tiger ’04 or even the second Links title.  It’s doing almost everything right, from the amazing constant stat tracking and real-time player levelling, to the character management skill training.

The bottom line here is this game completely makes up for the offering that was Tiger 08, which I had to quit playing lest I embed the DVD in my basement wall after I hurled it out of sheer frustration at the horrible levelling technique which blocked the player’s progression on the very first challenge.

That said, there have been a list of bugs that have been bothering me about Tiger for years.  Some of these go back all the way to 04 (which is still my favorite golf game ever), and some of them are new to this version.  I know, I know, I’m going to talk turkey about a sports game’s game design, but stick around.  These kind of issues are what makes for good game design discussion, regardless of the title.

Top Ten Ways to Make Tiger Perfect:

 

  1. Play the ball where it lies.  Tiger is notorious for putting the ball in a place where it can better manage the character animation, as they don’t have really robust IK controls to force the player to stand on the lip of a tall sand trap.  The problem with this is that when my ball goes into a sand trap, I should play it where it went into the sand trap, not 5 feet back from where the ball went in.  Often I can actually see the divot decal the ball left in the trap from the point where they “spotted” my ball.  It’s understandable if the ball is unplayable next to an unnatural hazard, like if it rolls up against the grandstand on the 18th hole.  You get a clublength of relief there.  But figure out a way to let me play the ball where it lies.  These are professional golfers here, not the Senior Citizen’s 3pm 9 hole league.
  2. Cameras should never make objects between the player and the hole invisible.  Right now the camera forces objects to be invisible if they’re within X range of the camera.  The problem with this is that your ball could roll up against a huge tree (or they’ll place the ball there), and you won’t even know it, because the camera’s rendering it invisible.  I got my first Deer Ass prize (a 0gs Achievement called Lost the Plot which means you exceeded the shot limit for a hole) because I was repeatedly attempting to hit my ball through the trunk of a 200 year old oak tree.  Unfortunately I had no idea it was there until I moved the camera a bit to see why my ball wasn’t going anywhere when I hit it, and BAM a giant tree pops up directly in front of my ball.  I don’t care if it means I can’t see the hole.  If there’s a friggin’ barn in front of me blocking my shot, I need to see it.
  3. Let.  Me.  PUTT.  Seriously, give me the putter on the tee box.  If an idiot wants to use a putter for an entire hole, let him.  Stop telling me how to play golf, because honestly, you’re doing it wrong.  If I’m 4 feet off the green, but it’s all fairway from where my ball is to the green, this is a puttable shot.  Pros do it all the time.  Hell, amateurs do it all the time.  In fact, there’s been multiple times when you’ve forced me to chip from off the fringe of the green, or when I was just one inch in the rough outside of the green.  Again, these are all 100% “use the putter” situations in real life, yet I’m forced to use a chip or a pitch because your game “logic” has decided I shouldn’t have access to my putter.  For god’s sake man, at least ask me if I’m one of these crazy “use your putter” people who likes to putt a ball when he’s just off the green.
  4. Clearly defined Out of Bounds markers.  If I was playing on some of your courses in real life, and you called me out of bounds for landing in the deep rough 10 yards off the fairway, with a clear line of sight to the green, I would beat you for being so rediculous.  And yet, it has happened to me twice now in Tiger 09.  You need to show the player either with clearly marked red stakes (the de-facto OoB marker in golf), or use some sort of HUD outline when the player uses his shot aimer.  I don’t mind that you put the OoB marker where you did, but if you don’t show the player the OoB marker, you’re doing your customer a great disservice.  I’m being overly aggressive on drives that I shouldn’t be, because your hole looks like it’s a normal golf course with no OoB markers between holes.  You’re not communicating effectively enough to the player the rules of your course, and that’s just bad or lazy design.
  5. Clear Shot Meter Percentages.  The natural swing mechanic of moving the analog stick like a golf club swing (that you awesomely stole from Outlaw Golf, if memory serves) is certainly the only way to play a golf game, as it helps with the immersion factor, but why would you make the better swing mechanic the inferior one when it comes to accuracy?  If I use the 3-click-swing mechanic (the old golf meter where you click a button three times to start, reverse, and stop a moving meter bar), I at least can see what % I am through my swing, and that’s a really important number to know when attempting to line up my shot.  You could argue that I need to visually find where I’m at in my natural swing motion animation, but if a player hangs at the top of his swing too long, or at any point in his swing, you start reducing the shot % without showing this to the player.  So unless a player stops his backswing exactly where he wants it and then immediately follows through, he has no real idea where he is %-wise on his shot.  I’ve done what felt like the exact same motion 3 times in a row, and wound up with 83%, 75%, and 59% respectively, depending on how long I paused at what I thought was about 90% of my shot meter.  Please, please give me some way to know just how much power I’m giving my shot on a natural swing meter.
  6. More Stats, not Less.  In Tiger 04, the player had something like 10 or 12 statistics they could manage, and level up.  In Tiger 09, there are four.  Four.  4 stats.  Where’d spin go?  I don’t mind that luck isn’t there anymore, but really, “power” and “accuracy” are just too broad of stats to apply to every golf swing.  This would be like only having one “distance” stat in a football game apply to both your kicker and your quarterback.  Okay, maybe that was a little bit extreme of an example, but you don’t swing a driver like you do a short iron; it’s pointless to have just one stat apply to both.  Some people are amazing with their woods; others (like me) struggle with them.  Players like micromanaging their player’s stats.  Give us something to manage.  At least something more than four bars.
  7. Better Skill Challenges.  Okay, your challenges are pretty awesome, but I’m tired of this idea of a “ring” that every shot has to wind up inside of.  Specifically, I’m looking at you, Power stat challenge.  When you’re trying to increase a stat that is only goverened by distance, having someone shoot at a circle is just stupid.  Why, you say?  Because it’s possible to actually shoot past the ring, and not get credit for the distance, because you’re outside of the challenge’s victory condition.  That’s right, the Distance challenge punishes you for hitting the ball too far.  The stat isn’t governed by good ball placement, or making sure you didn’t trickle into that trap guarding the fairway.  It only cares that you’re A).  On the fairway, and B).  X yards average per drive.  The hooks are already there to measure this properly.  Just detect if the player’s on the fairway (using your Fairway In Regulation detector) and beyond the yardage line the coach has set (using your Farthest Drive tech you use for the player set challenges).  Stop punishing players for crushing drives because they missed your circle.  That’s what your accuracy challenge is there for.
  8. Better Game Mode Rules.  There’s a few game types that aren’t tracking victory conditions properly, and it can get a bit annoying when you’re stuck with them.  One of them, specifically, is the “skins” matches.  On one of my Tiger Challenge matches, I was informed that I needed to get 3 skins from some fictional Scottish golfer on 5 holes.  In the first three holes, I took 3 skins (won the first and third holes, pushed on the 2nd hole).  This is a winning victory condition.  There is no reason to continue playing the challenge, as skins are not “stealable.”  You can’t lose them.  It’s not like stroke play where you can be ahead by two strokes on the 3rd hole, but then lose the next two holes and come out losing.  The challenge was to win 3 skins.  I won 3 skins.  Imagine if professional teams were tasked with winning 3 out of 5 games, and after winning the first three games straight, were still forced to play the 4th and 5th game of the series.  It’s just kinda a bit ludicrous.  But it actually got worse.  We pushed the 4th and 5th skin, and the game actually went to a tiebreaker.  I’m winning 3 to 0 after 5 holes, and I’m now forced to play a tiebreaker.  Where there is no tie.  I was actually considering just throwing the hole if it looked like we were going to tie again, as there didn’t seem to be a losing condition for having the other player get to 3 skins (I got to 3 skins, it said get 3 skins to win).  Fortunately, I managed to win the sixth hole and take 6 skins, but the whole affair was just redonculous, and turned me off from playing more Tiger Challenges.
  9. Better Commentary Timing.  The commentary is normally pretty great, but the timing on it is awful.  Quite often, on even long putts, my ball will be going in the hole, actually going over the lip, and the audio commentary for the putt will kick in, saying “I don’t know if this is going to have the distance…”  I mean, the ball is already in the cup.  Your commenters wind up sounding like they’re not even remotely paying attention, or are just lazy.  I know you can predict if the ball is going in the cup or not; you have the tech to show me where my putt is going if I ask you to with the Left Button on my Putt Preview.  So figure out how to get that audio to come up earlier.  There is a nice feature where if my ball is heading for the rough but I manage to spin it out, your color commentary woman will correct the play-by-play commentator when he says “where is that shot going?” with a snippy “well it looks okay to me!”  That stuff is great.  Just, figure out how to make the on the green commentary work better.
  10. I’m approaching nitpickery status here, but get Ball Physics in the Cup.  If the camera is high, I can see that you’re cheating once the ball goes over the lip of the cup.  It just freezes in midair.  Maybe the physics on the ball in the cup gets all crazy?  It surely can’t be a performance/CPU issue.  I know you’ve cheated the ball phsyics on putts in the past; in Tiger 04 I’ve seen a ball stop at the lip of the cup and then just take a dive over the edge multiple times.  But I don’t understand why the ball stops moving once it gets past what you think is the player’s vantage point.  It’s silly.  I could see there being horrible physics interpenetration issues if the stick was in the cup still, but hey, it’s a golf game.  Figure out a way to make it work like one.
  11. If you’re not going to care about Voice Talent for the Create-a-Player, don’t ask me to.  It’s awful.  I’d rather turn it off, but I don’t think there’s an option for it.  If I have to listen to this loser say in a B-Movie “Not over there” style whine again, I’m going to lose it.  I’d replace my guy with a Game Face player (who in 08 stopped talking, thank god), but as you can see from my next entry, I can’t.
  12. Could you Make Game Face Actually Work?  Maybe I’m the only guy it doesn’t work for, but after taking 20 minutes to take the photos, find where on the EA Sports website to upload my photos, upload the photos, edit the photos, and save them off, I had the wonderful displeasure of having Tiger 09 tell me it couldn’t actually use or access the photos.  I could see them, I could even select them, but then the game just refused to use them.  And here’s the kicker:  I know that it’s going to take at least 20 more minutes to render my face if Tiger 08 was any indication.  It’s a 40 minute process, for pretty much anyone.  You could at the very least make efforts to make things go a bit smoother.  Finding where you can upload your face to wasn’t very clearly marked on the website, and then it didn’t even work in game.  I put this one next to last because I’m just hoping it was due to an overlogged server, but the game has been out for over a week.  I don’t get why this has to be so difficult.
  13. XP Everywhere.  Tycho already ranted about it enough, so I’m not going to go into it here.  But if you get XP for finishing a hole, you should get that XP if you’re online, offline, in a practice mode.  Everywhere.
Okay, bonus points if you were laughing at how I can’t count.
Again, these are all just suggestions on how to make an already great golf game better.  I don’t want people to get the wrong idea and think that I hated Tiger 09; quite the opposite is true.  This has been the best offerings from EA in 5 years, but it could still be made better, or at least iron out some of the player frustrations.
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 3 comments }

What Do You Do? The Series.

by Steve Bowler on September 11, 2008 · 5 comments

in general

Back when I first started game-ism I set out to document my mild frustration with the situation that comes up when people outside of the game industry find out what you do for a living.  It was the first big thing I wrote here that was linked to by people I don’t know personally, and I decided then to make it an ongoing series, if for no other reason than I like hearing other people in or about the industry talk about their personal lives.  A little bit late, I’m finally making good on the promise to myself.  So welcome to the first edition of What Do You Do?  The Series.  Today’s guest is Leigh Alexander.

First, let me take a moment to thank you Leigh for taking the time to be the first victim in what I hope is a long-running interview series, where we explore what folks in the games industry deal with on a day-to-day basis and how people in our lives outside of the industry view what we do for a living.  It’s based in part on the original article here, which asks the question that always begins the awkward conversations with neighbors, friends of friends, or extended family.  So let’s start with some background information on what you do for a living to bring everyone up to speed.  

 

Spitfire:  Who are you, and “What do you do?”

Leigh:  My name is Leigh Alexander. I’m news director for Gamasutra, a game industry news site. I also write the Sexy Videogameland blog, I do the bi-weekly Aberrant Gamer column at GameSetWatch, I column monthly for Kotaku and I write reviews for Variety, and do occasional game-related freelancing for other outlets. 

 

Spitfire:  Is writing games journalism what you set out to do?  Has this always been a passion or calling for you?

Leigh:  I wouldn’t say I immediately set out to do it. I’ve loved games my whole life, but for me they stand among a variety of other hobbies and interests like art, music, literature, philosophy and theatre. I actually went to school for acting, at a conservatory in New York, but after graduation I naturally gravitated toward writing instead. I started a game blog for fun, but then learned that not only did I enjoy writing on games immensely, but I had something to contribute to the space. Before I got involved in blogging I didn’t know that there were so many people interested in sharing the same kinds of thoughts on games that I had, and it was a lot of fun to feel like I was joining a community. I enjoyed being part of it and started pursuing it professionally.

 

Spitfire:  What do your parents or family members think of what you do for a living?  I’ve seen reactions go all sorts of ways.  Are they in awe?  Is it the unspoken family secret?  Is it just another job?  Do they read your work?

Leigh:  Actually, my Dad spent some time as a game journalist way back in the eighties. He was a tech writer, and back then game articles were just part of covering home entertainment hardware like VCRs, TVs and the newfangled idea of a personal computer. So we always had a lot of tech in the house, and I must have soaked up the journalism vibe from my Dad, even though I never read his articles — I just played all the free review units we got! So my parents do understand the work I do and support it, and sometimes they even read my articles, although they’re not gamers of the modern sort, so I doubt it’s very interesting to them. They’re proud of me, though, and are able to explain what I do to aunts and uncles and other folks.

I have a younger sister who was my gaming copilot when we were kids, and she thinks it’s cool that this is what I’ve ended up doing. She still plays, but likes mostly 16-bit stuff; she kept our old Genesis, although she’s gotten a Wii recently. She has many nerdy friends who do actually read my work, and so she says she likes to feel cool when she gets to reveal to people that she’s my sister.

 

Spitfire:  You’ve written recently about how your girlfriends who play games shy away from the “hardcore boys club” titles.  Do you have friends or girlfriends who don’t play games at all?  If so, is gaming or the job ever seen as a point of contention?  I ask because guys are pretty straightforward.  Most like games, even if they’re not gamers.  Are social relationships different for a female gamer with female non gamers?

Leigh:  Most of my female friends don’t play games, actually. They’re nice people who try to understand and support what I do, but they avoid sharing it with me, I think because they find it intimidating or just “not for them.” I feel that they consider my job a “neat quirk” about me, but I’m not sure how seriously they take it. So yes, it is different in my social relationships. I once had a female friend advise me not to tell people right off the bat that I write about video games for a living, because “girls will think it’s weird.” And with another friend, we were writing personal ads on a social website for fun, once, and she advised me not to write down my job because it would “turn off cool people and bring in the creeps.”

It’s always something that raises the eyebrows of men, but often in a much more positive way, as you might guess. But I always want friends to know what I do, so I let them know right off the bat — if it’s a “point of contention,” as you say, then it’s probably not someone who’s a good match for me in terms of a friendship.

 

Spitfire:  Describe your typical game store purchase interaction.  Do they know who you are and what you do for a living?  Or do you prefer to just be one of the crowd?

Leigh:  I live in a small urban neighborhood in New York City where we have one game store and I know the employees by name. I usually go in there to trade stuff in and pick up stuff I’ve missed, and they can usually guess what I’m there to get based on what’s new. They ask me for recommendations on upcoming titles, or sometimes whether to play a certain multiplatform title on Xbox 360 or PS3. I usually hang out in there for a while and shoot the shit. It’s fun. They know what I do, but this is the ghetto, really, so it’s not common to see a culture of really active internet nerds. People around here love games, but that doesn’t mean they go online and read message boards or articles or join web communities and things like that.

 

Spitfire:  Have you ever been recognized in public outside of an industry peer atmosphere?  

Leigh:  When I went to Toys ‘R’ Us to download Manaphy during a Pokemon event, the store employee did recognize me. But besides that, outside of industry events, nobody knows who I am on sight. I should get long dreadlocks like N’Gai or something, because I hear he gets recognized a lot!       

My sister recently told me, though, that she was playing with friends at an arcade in Massachusetts, and was talking to a friend about me and someone who worked at the arcade overheard and ran up and was all like, “You’re Leigh Alexander’s sister?! Oh my god, tell her I love her!” We had a good laugh over that one.  But other than stuff like that, where people tell me that someone to whom they mentioned me had read my articles, I don’t get recognized really, no.

 

Spitfire:  I live in suburbia where I don’t even think anyone around me who doesn’t have kids owns even so much as a Wii.  I’m wondering if anyone else feels like a fish out of water when they’re out mowing the lawn or getting the mail.  There’s plenty of things I can talk to my neighbors about, but I just think it’s odd that nobody’s a gamer around me.  What’s your day-to-day human interaction quotient look like?  Do you have neighbors who know what you do for a living?  Are they gamers?  Does the job come up in smalltalk?

Leigh:  In my little urban neighborhood I don’t talk to too many people; in a big city, it’s fairly common for everyone to keep to themselves, and because it’s all apartments, neighbors tend to rotate frequently. I had a downstairs neighbor for a while who knew about my job and supported me and asked polite questions about how work was going, but wasn’t very interested in the work itself. I’m friendly with these elderly Italian mothers on the block, and I have a hard time even getting them to understand that my job involves writing on a computer and publishing on the internet from home. I really think they all believe I am a “kept woman” who just sits around all day up here.      

When I ride the subway, though, I often see people of all ages and backgrounds playing DS and PSP, so I don’t feel so odd. And whenever I play on my DS or PSP, I notice everyone sitting or standing near me on the train peeks over to look at my screen, and smile at me when they catch my eye. I think a lot of people around me are interested in games, but it’s not their culture. If I do end up talking about it with someone sitting beside me, or something, they say they don’t have time to keep up with games or that they just don’t understand it and wouldn’t know where to begin. 

My UPS delivery guy actually talks to me about my job more than anyone else. I almost always have games coming to my door, whether that’s packages I bought on Amazon or mailings from publishers of titles I’m reviewing, so he ended up asking why I get so many, and I told him. Since then, he always asks what I’m getting when he makes a delivery, or solicits my advice on his next game purchases. It’s kinda funny — he even asks me to verify rumors of hardware redesigns or impending price cuts and things I don’t necessarily know the answer to!

 

Spitfire:  Does gaming come up a lot in casual discussion with friends or group gatherings (say with friends of friends, at parties, bars)?  Do you sit back and watch the show?  Or do you weigh in as a pundit?

Leigh:  Actually, I sort of find it annoying to talk about games at parties or in bars. Usually there’s some middle-aged drunk guy, or some fratboy trying to act cool, and they end up asking me about games in a way they think is flirting with me, but it’s something like, “So which should I get? The Xbox or the Wii?” And when I try to tell them that they’re very different experiences, they’re not actually listening! Or they namedrop something like Guitar Hero or Halo because they’ve heard of it on TV, without really knowing what either of those really are.     

I don’t weigh in, usually, because so many people have really only the most shallow perception of the industry, and when I try to actually talk about it in any kind of depth, I’m putting people in way over their heads. No one wants to be the nerd at the party who totally over-complicates the conversation, right? If people want to talk about games I sort of let them know that I know a lot about them and answer questions when asked, but especially in a party environment where the point is to socialize, I find myself giving the “for Dummies” version so that we can move onto the next casual conversation topic. 

 
Spitfire:  Have you ever had to correct someone you know, family, friend, or stranger, regarding a popular gaming myth?

Leigh:  Well, if people are joking about things like gamer stereotypes to me, they’re obviously not very bright! Saying something like “gamers are nerds” is not a wise thing to say to one! The most common myth I encounter if I happen to mention games to someone is, “aren’t those really violent?” That’s the thing I most often have to explain — that yes, some games are really violent, but no more so than movies, and many of them are not at all violent. People often seem surprised or amused when I try to tell them that some games have stories, and have emotional engagement as a goal. This is usually people who are older than I am — people my own age take to the topic better.     

The second most-common myth is that games are unsophisticated. People are always really surprised to learn how “intelligent” games have become, and how beautiful some of them are, and that they have quality music instead of bleeps and bloops. The thing I hear most often is someone laughs uncomfortably and goes, “Heh, well, I know Pong…”
 

Spitfire:  The main reason I wanted to interview you for this series is because you also brought up the “what do you do?” question in an SVGL piece.  I’ve actually dodged the question (at a wedding) because sometimes I don’t want to start the 20 questions game that follows.  What are your thoughts on these kinds of encounters?  Do you enjoy the spotlight?  

Leigh:  It really depends on who I’m with. My career and my interest in games is something that tends to require a fair bit of explanation, like you say, and when I’m sitting around the table at a wedding, for example, is not the time for me to dominate the conversation by talking shop; I feel it’s impolite. So I give brief answers to questions if people are interested, but I’m never tempted to launch into a whole in-depth recital about my goals as a writer, what I think games can mean to society and blah blah blah.     

In general, I don’t mind answering questions about anything. It just comes down to whether I feel it’s the appropriate person, time and place for a detailed explanation, and I’ll bet that’s the case for anyone who has an unusual job. But I don’t feel it’s something I need to hide; I usually say, “I’m a journalist; I cover the video game industry both as a business and as entertainment, and I write news for websites.” That’s usually enough to help people understand, and I don’t mind talking to them more about it if the situation suits. 

 

Spitfire:  Do you feel that the general mass market/population has an accurate grasp on what it’s like to work in the game industry?  Is there anything you think we could or should do to help educate the general population about what working in the games industry is like?  Or is this something that will just correct itself with time?  Is it even an issue?

Leigh:  I don’t think they have any idea! The most common question that people ask about my job itself is to clarify that I write about games, I don’t write the games themselves. I don’t know if they think I’m like a scriptwriter, or a programmer or what! People are also really surprised to know that there’s so much to write about on a daily basis as far as news, and that it’s a major industry like any other. On any given day I write articles about financial news, business partnerships and new products just like I would in any other industry. I think many people still have the misconception that a game writer must be solely a reviewer, and that I just play games all day. For me personally, my job involves more writing about the companies that make games rather than the games themselves, although I do write about games themselves a fair bit in my columns and on SVGL.    

As far as “what it’s like to work in the industry,” I don’t consider myself “in the industry.” As someone who needs to write about the industry objectively, I am somewhat outside of it and I think that’s how it should be. As far as the experience of someone inside the game industry, I have educated ideas about their experiences and have been told by many individuals about what their work is like, but I don’t advise anyone on that. 

I don’t think that people necessarily need to be educated on that unless they want to be. I’m not interested in, for example, gold mines, oil wells, shipping or real estate, and I wouldn’t really want people in those industries feeling like it’s their personal goal to evolve my interest level. I do feel that more people would enjoy games if they were welcomed into the space, and I am also optimistic that games’ involvement in our larger culture will continue to increase — but at the same time, to each their own. I don’t mind if people have different interests or career goals than I do. 

 

Spitfire:  Thanks again for taking the time to do this interview, Leigh!  Everyone be sure to go read Leigh’s work, which appears everywhere on the interwebs daily.  If you aren’t already familiar with her work (and if so, what’s wrong with you?), just throw a stick at GameSetWatch, GamaSutra, Kotaku, or her personal blog, Sexy Videogameland (among countless other locations), and you’re bound to hit one of her brilliant think pieces.

SVGL title art above (by Van Sneed) used with permission.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 5 comments }

A Little Embarassed

by Steve Bowler on September 7, 2008 · 2 comments

in uncategorized

Stop me if I’ve told this one before.

Awhile back, I was organizing my games collection with my wife, and we were both a bit shocked to come to find that there’s at least nine golf games in my collection (PC and Console combined).  Nine.  Golf Games.  And I’m not even talking about like every single version of Tiger, either (I’ve only owned two different versions of it, will probably be buying ’09).  Hell, I’ve probably forgotten about one or two, like old Sim Golf titles.  I even once was buying microtransactions in Shot Online.

It’s not even like I’m a golf nut.  I play golf.  I enjoy watching some golf highlights on TV every once in awhile.  I’ll watch PGA tour footage if Tiger is playing.  But that’s about it.  I don’t play every weekend, or even as much as I’d like (some months I don’t even get out to play), and if I had to say what percentage of my video-game playing time in the past ten years included golf-related titles, I’d probably say less than 5%.

But there it is, at least nine golf games staring me in the face.

It’s not like it’s my number one genre.  I have no doubt that FPS would be the easy victor here.  Golf probably isn’t even second.  I imagine there’s enough RPG in the collection, or a slow buildup of racing titles over the years to knock it out of second.  But nine?  Golf games?  I just realized that I might be over ten now if I count golf themed games.

At any rate, it kind of came as a surprise to me, and even some of my friends have pointed out that they didn’t know I was such a golf nut (I didn’t either!).

So what would we find if we went through your collection?  Do you have any surprises that you weren’t even aware of?  Is there a large volume of Olsen Twins DS titles in there anywhere?  Did you not realize what a Mario fanboy you are?  Show us whatcha got.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 2 comments }

Feature Request: Better Achievements

by Steve Bowler on September 6, 2008 · 6 comments

in design

 

Congratulations, youve stopped demanding excellence.

 

Achievements.  While they continue to set the rest of the 360 gamer community afire, I’ve never really been a fan.  To me, they’re nothing more than a very shallow meta game to turn the 360 into one giant MMO grind.  People who buy into achievements and the achievement score wind up playing games just to get as many points as possible in the quickest time posible.  Sometimes, just getting the achievements has become the meta game.  No longer is the challenge to buy and play through a game, wearing the achievements as a badge of honor; the game is now identifying which titles provide the most achievement points in the shortest turnaround time.  Staying on top of the leaderboard is the game, not playing the actual games themselves.

We could even argue that the only thing achievements really drive are sales of Live memberships (to track the scores amongst friends leaderboards), as people whose sole purpose is to play for achievements are mostly renters.  Sure, they buy a few of the multiplayer titles that have some longevity, but why buy a game if you only plan on playing it for 4 days to get the 800-1000 achievement points?  They breed an atmosphere of competition, not one of enjoyment of consumption or appreciation for the game in front of them.  They’re the worst sort of collectors.  They represent an eating contest, not a sophisticated wine tasting.

But as much as I hate them, they’re here to stay.  So, since we have to work with the system, how can we improve upon it?

One way would be to do away with mundane achievements.  Is getting through the first chapter really an achievement?  I’d say finishing the game qualifies as noteworthy, but I tire of chapter based achievements.  I shouldn’t need a carrot outside of the game to compel me to move to the next chapter of your game.  Your game should be so interesting that I can’t wait to see what comes next.  

In general, I’d appreciate it if the achievements weren’t the carrot that got me to keep playing the game.  Looking at the Fallout 3 list of achievements, I was cheesed to see that there are nine achievements tied to your Karma score and your character level score.  If an achievement whore wanted to get all 9 of these achievements, they would have to play through the game ’till they hit level 20 three times in order to catch them all.  Now, I feel that people who absolutely must get every achievement in a game are certifiably crazy, so I don’t pity them that much, but there’s 180G of wasted gamerpoints on what should  be no more than six achievements:  Level 8, 14, and 20, and beat the game with Good, Neutral, and Bad Karma.  Even then, throw out the last three.  The reward for seeing the three different Karma tracks should be in the game, not in the achievements.

Once we’ve thrown out the mundane character levelling or chapter based achievements, there will be more room for the fantastically interesting achievements.  Give me more Testikills, or Psychotic Prankster.  I want more skill based achievements such as Endo King or Unicyclist.  Hell, while I’m posting about interesting achievements and PGR4, how about more Puzzle Achievements?  I’d even like to see more crazy viral achievements.  Like Blitz’s Burning Sensation or Shadowrun Fever (tea-bag someone who has it).

I’d even like to see many more locked achievements.  Sure, they get compiled and exposed (at the Xbox360Achievements.org site I’ve been linking to this whole time) rather quickly, but I’d rather people played my game without a laundry list.  I’m already firmly in the “you shouldn’t be playing games for achievements only” camp anyway, so don’t bother posting comments saying “But Spitfire, some people love that!” because I don’t feel that behavior is going to further anyone’s enjoyment of a single game, nor is it going to promote or advance the art form in general.

So how do we fix the apathetic Achievements?  The problem is that for so many games (including the ones I’ve worked on), the achievements are done at the eleventh hour; they’re mostly an afterthought.  Games certainly aren’t designed around acheivements, it’s nearly 100% the other way around.  Developers look at what hooks they have in their games for stat tracking or focus testing, and try and find ways to expose them as achievements.  Some games have exceeded my expectations with some really entertaining ones, but for the most part, they are pretty much phoned in.

The other problem is that fixing this means throwing more money and more bodies at the end of a game’s dev cycle during a time when there’s already too many people with their hands in the pot as it is.  Most game teams don’t want to spend any money on achievements, since, as I said earlier, they don’t really add to sales of a title.  So the task usually goes to some poor designer who’s already overworked (and underpaid) to throw together the list which is hopefully at least passably creative but more importantly to the team passes all of the TRC Requirements for Achievements.

One way to fix this is to start thinking about your Achievements earlier on during development.  Have you put something unique in your level that not everyone is going to trip over?  Make sure you’ve got a code/script hook there for the Achievement later.  Have you found a fun way to play the game that nobody has really thought of?  Make it an Achievement for someone to discover that at retail.  Can you find new and interesting meta puzzles that involve using a (locked) Achievement as a clue to solving a puzzle?

Let’s actually put the word achievement into Achievements.  What, as an industry, can we do to make these little morsels of saccharine mean something?

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 6 comments }

Chromed

by Steve Bowler on September 2, 2008 · 5 comments

in design

Wow, I’m kinda floored by how awesome Google’s new browser, chrome, is.

I’ve wondered how long it was going to take for Google to enter the browser market, what with their spiders, and their data tracking that they already do, not to mention their robust analytics, etc.  While I have my beefs with Google Ads (do yourself a favor:  don’t use them unless you don’t mind having them yanked out from under you even if you follow the EULA to the letter), for the most part, Google provides some incredible services at an even better (free) price.

What I think I like the most about chrome is the simplicity of it.  Like all Google products, the design is always functional, never about the form, and yet, they still accomplish an incredibly clean aesthetic with all the features you didn’t even know you wanted.

If you haven’t tried it yet, do yourself a favor and have at it.

This is pure design elegance.  It’s how browsing the internet was meant to be.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 5 comments }

Don’t let it be this game.

Seriously, friends don’t let friends build Fantastic Contraptions.

I don’t know what’s cooler:  making a machine that works, or seeing how mind-blowingly awesome everyone else’s machines are.  For the level depicted, you could build a machine that looks more like a plow (that’s how I solved “Awash,” the level pictured here), or you could use the techniques pictured below:  make a snake (who knew?), or of all things, a frickin’ catapult.

I’d go on uselessly for paragraphs about how cool this game is, and how important it is for gaming, but really, it speaks for itself.  Just go play it.  Impress yourself.  Surprise yourself.  And make sure to see what other people are making.

Jeez, it has player created content, peer learning, problem solving.  Just.  Wow.  I’d call this the greatest casual game ever, but I’m not even sure it can be called “casual.”

I’m stuck on Tube, for the record.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 5 comments }

Horrible Box Art: Glad it isn’t Just Us

by Steve Bowler on August 23, 2008 · 3 comments

in uncategorized

Eventually every game team arrives at the day when it’s time to put your baby in a box.  Give that game a face and release it into the wild for the world to put their eyes on.  I’ve never been a fan of the term phrase “You can’t judge a book by its cover.”  I mean, if that were true, then why do books have such beautiful dust jackets?  If we weren’t supposed to judge books by their cover, then the phrase “First impressions are everything” would be false by default.  We obviously do judge everything by its cover, and marketers know this, so when your game gets a hideous one, well, the results can be heartbreaking.

I’ve been on some games that got some pretty awful covers that had almost nothing to do with the game that was inside.  While I can’t go into which ones they were and still maintain my anonymity, I’m sure I’m not alone in saying that I felt I could have done a better job.  I have no doubt that a lot of game teams would rather have the chance to design the box art and make a better reflection of what’s inside for the consumer at large.

So it should come as no surprise that it happens in the film industry, too.  It turns out that Dane Cook isn’t too pleased with the movie poster for his new film, my best friend’s girl.  Besides the hilarious ranting (seriously, it helps that Dane’s a funny guy), he makes a really good point as to why it’s so bad:

Granted, one poster stinking up the joint isn’t the end of the world. Yet it sends the wrong message about our movie and I just wanted you to know, that I feel the pain. I really love the film and I know from past missteps marketing wise that the wrong poster sends the wrong audience into the theater.

I love that he gets what’s so important about the box art (or in his case movie poster):  it’s your first point of contact for your audience, and if it’s done wrong, you wind up with the wrong audience for that piece of media.  Granted, most games get it at least acceptably right, but it can feel tragic when it’s your game that got it wrong.

Anyone have any favorites that they can think of they want to share?  I, for one, think the US MegaMan was the worst offender, but anything recent come to mind?

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 3 comments }

Challenge vs. Frustration

by Steve Bowler on August 19, 2008 · 28 comments

in uncategorized

I was reading a great followup to GTA IV and how well they nailed their depiction of New York city over at Sexy Videogameland, when Leigh started wondering why it had been so long since she’d played GTA IV, much less thought about it.  Namely, she questions why she used to spend so much time playing the old school pre 32 bit era titles, and how people nowadays hardly spend more than 6-10 hours with any given AAA next gen title.

Why is it that the more complex games get, the less time we spend playing them?

It’s a great question, and it’s been one that I’ve been kicking around for a few months, especially after playing Rearmed so much this past week.  I’ve probably put in more hours playing Rearmed than I have GTA IV, but I’m not sure that has much to do with the values of the game production as it does a lot of other factors.  I don’t think the issue is ever as simple as how real or lush the worlds are (and I’m not implying Leigh felt that way).

Personally, I don’t spend a lot of time with GTA IV because I’m admittedly very burned out on the series.  I’ve beaten as many prostitutes as I’m going to beat in this lifetime, I’ve run over countless pedestrians, I’ve busted as many caps in asses as I have to bust.  I’m all crooked out.  I just don’t identify with a criminal’s plight, no matter how well his story is crafted this time around.  I got caught up in the GTA IV hype about as much as I got caught up in the Halo 3 hype (which is to say, very), and despite buying both titles, never got past the 10 hour mark in either (I at least finished Halo 3′s story mode, though).

But again, I’m probably the exception to the rule here.  I don’t think the reason most people only play the new big titles for 6-10 hours is because they’re tired of the title itself.  I’m wondering if it doesn’t have more to do with the method with which the title is built.

Within the last ten years, there’s been a very deliberate progression away from “hardcore” ludic aesthetics.  Before the 64 bit era games, pretty much everything on the market was “Learn by Death.”  It’s a game design mentality that is built on the shoulders of coin-op:  give the player more challenge than they can possibly accomplish on a single quarter, but reward them with enough cool stuff that they feel compelled to put another quarter in the machine.  Almost universally, this is accomplished through “death,” be it killing off the player, or making them lose the race, not reach the end of the level/puzzle before the clock runs out, etc.  It’s a financial risk reward game developers had to play for so long, in order to coax as many quarters as possible out of a consumer’s pockets.  In many ways, the grind of MMO is the closest current age equivalent (but it’s stretched out over a muuuuuccchhhh longer time curve).

Awhile back at GDC I attended a panel that discussed taking frustration away from the player.  Microsoft evidently has all sorts of metrics that show that players who are able to finish a game are more likely to purchase a sequel or order DLC, so it makes sense to take away the frustration that prohibits a player from finishing the title.  These things range from automatically adjusting difficulty, creating more checkpoints, allowing saves anywhere (vs. gating at savepoints), but most importantly, not punishing death.  Braid, for instance, is a perfect example of how not to punish death:  You simply don’t die.  You just rewind to a point previous to dying, and fix your error.  There’s no need for multiple lives or continues or checkpoints.  You just rewind.

Now, before I continue, I don’t think Braid is what’s wrong with gaming.  In many ways, it’s what’s right.  But the biggest problem with taking away “Learn by Death” is that in many ways, we’ve removed the challenge.  There is little to no tension in GTA IV, because I know that if I get into trouble, I just need to die.  Cops chasing you?  Don’t get arrested; they’ll take away your guns.  Just fight them, die, and wind up at the hospital with all of your guns still on your person.  The only penalty is that you might have to replay the mission you were on, and you probably lost the stolen car you were driving at the time.  Sure, there are hard parts in GTA IV.

But in the ten hours I played GTA IV I didn’t once have a nail-biter moment (at least I don’t recall many).

They came about every 3 minutes in Rearmed, by comparison.

In Rearmed I felt pushed and challenged at every corner, quite frequently more than I would have liked, and at times I laughed at my persistence in trying to get through what I thought was the intended level design only to find I’d just spent the past 20 minutes attempting to get to an impossible to reach secret 1up alcove.  I began to remember the pride I felt at beating Bionic Commando the first five times I played it on the NES.  There weren’t even save points back then; you had to leave the unit on if you couldn’t play through the entire game in one sitting.  I began to realize that I actually enjoy the challenge of Learn by Death, as much as I hate the frustration of it.

We didn’t go to the moon because it was easy, in the words of John F. Kennedy.  We went because it was hard.  I think people, even if they don’t know they want it, crave a challenge, even if it’s a slight one.  I have the sinking suspicion that the more we coddle the player, putting pillows on the sharp spikes and softening the melee blows, we create something that is too simple for them.  It’s been a long-held standard of mine that using god-mode while playing a game is tantamount to admitting that the game difficulty is either broken or you are officially finished with it and are now just going to “dick around with it.”  Even if dicking around with it isn’t your intent, you have now just ruined the game for yourself.  There is no more unique challenge; you’ve seen them all while under the guise of god-mode.  You have pretty much turned the challenge into a drooling child’s teether.

And this is what I think is wrong with the current path of removing player frustration.  While I agree that we need to pull player frustration as much as possible, we do need to challenge the player, and I think that’s where we’re failing as an industry:

  • Assassin’s Creed fails to challenge the player through exploration.  Climbing took the vast majority of their time to create in the game, and yet it’s the least challenging aspect of the game.  It’s too easy to pull off, and by the end of the game I found myself almost trying to make Altair fall.
  • GTA fails to challenge the player through death.  The police meter goes from one to six stars, and yet, the penalty for a six star response is the same as a one star response:  die, and restart in the hospital.
  • Bioshock failed at creating any difficulty or tension at all once the player learns that the entire game can be beaten with a wrench and multiple trips through Vitachambers.

Admittedly, this is a fine line I’m arguing here.  I’m not pretending I can easily do a job any better than Levine or Rockstar or Ubisoft at finding the balance of challenging the player without overly frustrating the player.  At the end of the day, what drives sales is consumer satisfaction, and if you blow the challenge curve into frustrating territory, the user’s going to not be satisfied, your title won’t sell, and you’re out of a job.

But even as I type that, I’m craving the challenge/frustration of Rearmed.  I’d love to say “they got it just right,” but I know that they didn’t.  I’m Learning by Death here in the very worst possible spiked trap kind of way, but I’ve been chewing on these baby teethers that are being passed off as “games” for so long that it’s a breath of fresh air.  I feel like a newfound S&M junkie.  Whip me, beat me, make me bleed, Learn by Death is all I need.

So where is the line?  Where do we put the challenge without the frustration?  Obviously, it’s somewhere in the “harder than GTA” camp but “easier than Learn by Death” camp, but where exactly does that live?  My money, and undoubtedly yours and everyone else’s, goes to the first team that figures it out.

[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Reddit] [Slashdot] [StumbleUpon] [Email]

{ 28 comments }