Abominating!

Well then. After a very long break, I have decided that I will keep this blog thing going as it could be useful not only for expressing ideas and interests, but also as a viewable medium of work and critique by potential employers (if I ever decide to work in the games industry).

Several weeks ago now, I once again interested my housemates here to play a UT2k4 mod called "Killing Floor". Now, zombies are cool. I think you would find few people who disagree (and if they do they are crazy). Shooting zombies, on the other hand, is even better. Shooting a never ending horde of zombies with a group of friends, delaying your inevitable demise is perhaps one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences you can encounter. What is great about killing floor is that you really do need to work together to stay alive (reloading, healing, welding doors shut etc..) as well as providing enough tension, fear and action into the mix to not ever get sick of it.

Below: Killing Floor - Curiosity killed the zombie.


However, what is interesting from a game play perspective, is that Killing Floor is rather slow. You move slow, you aim slow and (surprisingly not frustrating) reload slow too. You have no crosshair (sticky tape on screen with dot kgo) and status effects such as disorientation, bleeding and/or getting mauled by a zombie all effect how accurately you aim and move. Usually I do not care for these sort of games that attempt to mimic realistic qualities of human biology and limitations. A game is a game and if you want realistic games then I suggest you walk outside for awhile. But, in Killing Floor, these qualitites only enhance the gameplay experience. If you can imagine a limping team mate desperately trying to reach the safety of your teams temporary barricade while you are steadily running out of ammo shooting past him at the advancing horde of undead, then you can understand the very panicy and tense gameplay situations Killing Floor offers.

Below: Killing Floor - Anticipation is everything.


Also, retreating to an escape route elevator after being overrun in a corridor only to have a zombie with a chainsaw emerge from it when the doors open creates the most interesting team mate reactions and profanity you can possibly bear witness to.

Anyways, leaving off with a zombie zerg feel, I present a Left 4 Dead trailer, a new game being patented and soon to be released by Valve. It should be pretty epic.

Below: Left 4 Dead - 28 Days... now.

Mission accomplished.

Well then. It is done (for the moment). Overall I thoroughly enjoyed having this blog as it has allowed me to express and communicate ideas and opinions about games design, as well as explore the field in various ways. Before reading the 16 additional blog entries required for part 2, I would like to direct the reader to a post made a few weeks earlier stating the information contained within:

Blog Post Criteria heads up

This post basically just explains the situation of the posting format I have chosen and invites the reader to take each post as one of many possible criteria variations.

The 16 posts making up part 2 range from the post "Decisions decisions" to the most recent "One Frag Left". Everything prior to this group was for the previous part.

I am considering keeping this blog alive and continuing to fill it with ideas and/or general opinions on games and the future of the franchise in the years to come. We shall see, however.

Below: BOOOM!!!

One Frag Left

Righto. Officially this is the last post required for this Journal before submission, so I decided to do something a bit different and simply mention some games that deserve being brought to attention. This post will therefore fall more into the industry examples/theory and own ideas section than group participation.

As anyone reading this blog could no doubt guess, I enjoy playing video games. There are games and even game genres that simply do not appeal to me, but for the most part I enjoy almost all types of games. I believe strongly in playing a game first before forming an opinion about it, therefore the variety of games that I at least endeavor to try is usually rather broad. As you can see from the contents of this blog, some games evidently stand out. WoW, Crysis, TA, TF2 and UT are all examples of games (and game types) that I play and enjoy playing. I try to be fair and judge these games with a critical eye, not only to avoid fanboism (previously mentioned) but simply to distinguish where these games could possibly have been better designed. As a potential future games programmer (AI, networking, engine etc..) understanding the intricacies of this is very important to me.

So if you can understand my awe when I came across the game Rez developed by SEGA entertainment, you could probably assume that it is something pretty awesome. Well it is. Rez, originally developed for the Dreamcast in 2001, is a very abstract, music themed third person shooter where the player's character undertakes some form of 'adventure' within a computer mainframe. The general idea is to shoot incoming objects, which in turn generates the music track you are listening to and enhances the players abilities. What is interesting about this process is the fact your character undergoes evolution, in a wire-frame world very much evolutionarily themed. Taking into consideration the theme of the game, the blend of evolution and technology is both unique and aesthetically pleasing.

Below: Rez - A true work of gaming art


Another slightly similar game worth mentioning was an old PSX game called Omega Boost (Polyphony Digital, 1999). This game was, simply put, fun. You controlled some big high-powered, intergalactic traversing robot that had enough firepower to run the next world war, and probably the one after. You basically flew around and blew the living crap out of everything. The death of this living crap was pulled off in such a way that you could do it for hours without ever getting sick of it. It was an abstract game in a meaningless world where nothing mattered unless it was within your field of view. A modern arcade shooter, it is one of very few games that I actually believe grasps the concept of mindless fun and doesn't drown it out with unnecessary information, narrative or complexity.

Below: Omega Boost - Do a Barrel roll (in style)!


Both Rez and Omega Boost have distinct similarities which I think are important for game designers to at least acknowledge. Both are extremely easy to play and abstract enough so that they remain entertaining in a somewhat alien sort of way. They do not really require any form of major concentration to perform well in, nor do they expect it from the user when the levels get harder. They are just simply engaging, immersion in probably its most raw form.

And then there was Homeworld (Sierra, 1999). I cannot believe I have not once mentioned that game or its sequel in this blog. Homeworld and Homeworld 2 have probably been two of the most influential games for me as a growing adult. As a space strategy game, it had an excellent story, beautiful theme and style, as well as the introduction of movement on all 3 axis, a feat only pulled off by few strategy games. Not only was this original, but for me it opened a completely new level of strategic game play. If I could describe the game in one word, it would be 'Epic'. I shall let the game speak for itself.

Below: Homeworld 2 - The space enthusiasts dream game



What does this do for me? Despite immense puzzlement in how one would actually code some of these games (especially Rez), the idea of abstraction, immersion and fun combined in a game is very interesting. Recently, the only game I can think of that combines these elements is Audiosurf, which has become insanely popular since it became a Steam client game. I am seriously considering designing some kind of game (or at least the basic engine of one), for the Major project coming up next semester. The freedom that is available when making a game such as this is something that may aid our team, considering the tools that we may have available.

Only time will tell...

All you man (are belong to us)

Manuals. This week's lecture about game manual's and documentation has quite some relevance to a piece of assessment due for this unit, the game manual for Crusaders. Although the lecture was more of a pictorial demonstration, it was clear that the variances and effectiveness of various manual designs can help or hinder the success of how easily a game can be played. To further illustrate this point of view, I will explore 3 game manuals that I currently have access to from 3 very different games. All three are equally effective in their design regarding the type of game they are related to.

Below: World of Soul Reaversis


World of Warcraft, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver and Crysis are all games that I own and played at some point in the past. Soul Reaver, undoubtedly the oldest (being a PSX game) has a very methodical layout of the content, relating very closely to game elements that would be uncovered during the course of the game. Controlling the main character moves logically towards enemies encountered and special abilities, with a brief history and rundown of the world and associated vampire clans. It lists relevant information earlier on in the manual with other less important data closer to the end. While the design is simple, it is an easy to follow and understand article that only gives out details when you require them.

World of Warcraft's manual is also very similar to Soul Reaver's, the main difference being the fact that is about 5x more comprehensive. This monolithic game manual includes in depth break downs of class roles and abilities as well as the narrative and lore behind the game environment. It could surely pass for bedtime reading for someone without anything else better to read. Blizzard leave no expense when they attempt to deliver as much information to the player as possible, which while convenient, may be daunting or confusing for someone looking for a simpler answer. However, the scale and complexity of a game like WoW really does require a large enough manual which in all honesty, only brushes the surface of the game.

Crysis on the other hand is a bit different from both of these games. It is very straight forward and direct, clear instructions with a very linear design (both navigationally and visually). "This is a gun", "shoot it by doing this" and "follow triangle on map" are derived objectives you will naturally get from skimming this type of manual design, which probably appeals to the slightly impatient nature of FPS gamers. Crysis is an action game, and reading is for wussies!

Below: If only you could combine the three...


Anyway, what does this mean for our manual? From what our group has discussed, our manual will probably follow a style very similar to all three of the ones mentioned. It will follow a chronological explanation of game play mechanics and the possible situations players will encounter, listed in the order most likely of occurrence. It will have the narrative and historical aspects of the game possibly listed later in the document, with the earlier information more related to the actual game play itself. These former sections will be very succinct and to the point, delivering information in an easy to comprehend and minimalistic, need-to-know manner. The style will quite possibly be in the form of some olde-English design, reminiscent of the era where the actual Crusades were taking place. This was also my intention for the use of the figurehead (i.e. a Crusader), however it wasn't a well received item by the rest of the group for some reason. Maybe we should change the name of the game.... :S.

It's just a flesh wound...

Yes, more play testing has, over the last week and a half, been performed on our game Crusaders. I'll keep this relatively short and simply discuss and reflect on my participation in this recent group work, as well as the new ideas and rules we have implemented.

First of all, we have a new board design consisting of hexagons placed concentrically around the central hexagon. Although we tried prototyping it before, this version is more accurate and probably the design we will use for the final version. It differs from the circular board as it has 6 nodes on the highest tier, 12 in the middle and 18 on the lowest, most outer tier. We originally thought this design would be a little confusing and tedious for new players to traverse, however because of the way the hexagons connect, it gives a much clearer idea as to the spaces available to you when you are moving up a tier. The extra space also gives room for up to 6 players to play the game. We have not tested the game with 6, therefore this may remain simply as speculation and not a feasible game play possibility.

Below: The ants go marching one by one hurrah, hurrah.....


We have also included a new 'alliance based moved to the game. Both Jeremy and I felt the need to strengthen the allegiance potentials of the game by including a move where to allied armies could move as once, but could only move on a 1/2 dice roll and one of the players would skip a turn. This implemented feature has turned out to be a pleasant success, often turning the tide of the race/battle quite severely. It is an excellent risk vs reward strategy that requires a bit of tactical play as well.

Below: Do it, and let the English see you do it.


Also, just today, we have been messing around with the idea of one use 'powerups' that players can use at any time during the course of play (applicable to them). This idea borrows from the FPS origins we are basing our game from, where items such as Jump Boots and Quad-damage amplifiers existed for resourceful players. Double move and double dice roll abilities were found to an interesting catchup options for trailing players, Mel even managed to beat a node reinforced by all 3 of my armies with only one of his. An 'immunity' option is also being tossed around, which I considered to be game breaking especially from a catchup, last ditch attempt attack on a leading player. We shall see.

Overall I am happy with the success our group is making and can be pleased with my and my team mates involvement in the group. We all have a very good idea of how the game works and the various strategies you can employ to be successful. This is mainly due to all of our concentrated involvement in its production. Very shortly we will be discussing and implementing the games material construction, something that should be quite interesting.

Also, check out the possible figure head for Crusaders...


THE BLACK KNIGHT ALWAYS TRIUMPHS!!!!! HAVE AT YOU!!!

Crit Rocket!

While play testing any form of interactive product is an essential design methodology procedure, perhaps the most important factor to understand when designing a game is that people new to it are not going to have any idea how to play it. The designers and programmers of the game will always have a far greater understanding of not only how the game works, but also any rules, tactics and/or exploits that can be achieved within the game environment. Usually. I say usually as though something like bunny-hoping in many Quake engine games (eg. Quake 3) are originally considered physics exploits, they can later be considered to be an actual gameplay 'feature'. Such is not the case for Quake engine's cousin Half-life (heavily modified Quake 2 engine) where bunny hoping was considered as game breaking and later patched to be removed.

Below: Quake 3 Bunny hopping - Fly me to the moon...


Jumping rabbits aside, the need for developers to receive feedback during all stages of production is something that should be seriously considered, especially considering the eventual success factor of the product. A good example of this taking place can be seen in the currently in production expansion for Blizzard's game World of Warcraft. Wrath of the Lich King, scheduled for release sometime at the end of this year, is currently undergoing an Alpha stage testing phase, available only to families and friends of Blizzard. A very secretive process, the game which is only partially completed is already undergoing tests concerning zone/level/quest progression and general aesthetic design and feel.

Below: WotLK Alpha - Nerf inbound!


Much like The Burning Crusade before it, it will eventually go into a Beta testing phase for several weeks prior to release when the content is deemed playable enough by mass audiences. The feedback they get from this stage of testing will determine the class balance and group mechanics (dungeons, raiding) which makes the game so popular today. The reason why Blizzard can so successfully and comprehensively perform these testing phases is partly because of the medium they have chosen and the platform with which they can update it: the PC and mass internet access. Feedback is prompt, if not live, with player testers able to communicate directly with developers while the content is being explored. It is a powerful development ability, especially concerning the varied demographics and interests associated with the game.

However, not all companies have such great success or resources for play testing. Auran's Fury was considered to be a flop primarily because of the limited play testing that the game received. Although the game did go through several open Beta phases, the game really only interested and addressed a niche community of avid MMO PvP fanatics. While the idea may have been brilliant and may have been enjoyable for the people who tested it, to the masses the game had a flavor that was not entirely appreciated. Another similar PvP MMO example Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (WAR), also coming up, was not so recently returned to an Alpha stage of production (having gone through an open Beta testing phase). Opinion as to why this happened was rumored to stem from both the undesirable results that Fury brought as well as gameplay results when contrasted to its primary competition (i.e. WoW).

Below: WAR- Apparently coming...


Anyway, getting away from MMOs and computer games altogether, play testing in our game is definetly something we as a group have considered. We are completely aware that our involvement in the development of the game has severely enhanced our concept and understandings of it, which may not be comprehensible to other people. Inviting several uni friends to come and playtest the game has been raised, and may go ahead this week if time is not an issue. If the game is not easy to understand, it may be necessary to both simplify the gameplay and/or interface slightly to avoid confusion and misinterpretations. This sort of minimalistic reconfiguration may lead into such areas as the discernible rule set and game manual, however this is a topic best left to discussion after next week's lecture.

"Where's the 'any' key?"

"Be not deceived with the first appearance of things, for show is not substance" - English Proverb

Yeah that. There is perhaps nothing more irritating in a game than bad interface design. Seriously. If there is one thing that has driven me off more games than I can count, it would have to cluttered, insensible and the outright confusing design of game interfaces and menus, something which should ideally be a walk in the park.

In this week's lecture we were given a brief run through as to what effective interface design means. Using both Nielsen's but primarily Norman's model of usability principles, user interface design was explained in simple generic terms where similarities were evident. Having gathered what was described in the lecture, I shall attempt to apply this knowledge and break down a user interface that has been bugging me (and many others) as of late.

Now, I am a big fan of Unreal Tournament, so it is important that the reader understand how much it pains me to have to draw criticism to its latest installment UT3. As much as I am a fan of the game, I will not attempt to shroud or even ignore some of the bad design decisions that this game suffers from. I attempt to avoid 'fanboism' as much as possible and this post should be evidence of such an action.

Below: UT3 - Menu


My most major concern with the design of UT3 is unfortunately the user interface. This interface is, as you can see, rather aesthetically pleasing. Its animated menus and general theme are both excellent. To be quite honest with you, I have absolutely no problem with the look of the menu interface at all. But that's the thing, its all looks. As a student of IT and programmer of very dodgy programs, I do not fall head over heels for how something looks, but rather how something functions. The problem with the UT3 menu is that it falls short in this area, especially considering the platform it is on.

The current UT3 menu design works quite functionally ... on consoles. It is in fact the same menu used in the console versions of the game, but it is not a port of the game. It was made concurrently alongside the XBoX 360 version of the game which the menu works perfectly for. However, for some reason Epic Games decided this menu would work well enough for the PC version, which is where they made their mistake. On PC, this menu suffers from terrible navigation and information errors, often taking up to 3 to 4 page transitions to get to a specific setting which simply has the option to be enabled or disabled. The nature of the PC gamer, which I must say I am primarily, is that the speed and accuracy of using a mouse and keyboard is something we take for granted. The menu is too large, too basic and does not make use of enough eye space that PC users generally have more of (i.e. closer to the screen). The need for panning options over multiple screens for the console version is unnecessary for the PC version. When you take into consideration that the PC version is in fact more customisable than the console, the plethora of additional options necessitates the need for a better streamlined and comprehensive menu design. Currently the navigation in the implemented menu design is too arduous for the average PC user, considering the tools and options available to them.

Further proof of community disapproval:
Beyond Unreal Forum Post
Beyond Unreal Poll

It also take a bloody long time to load. Since when did menus need a loading time?

Below: UT99 - Menu


Epic Games did not always have this problem however. As you can see in the original UT99 menu design, they had an excellent Uwindows theme going on which was basically perfect in every way imaginable. Everything, from video options to setting up matches was less than 2 clicks away and all available to the user at any time. The ability to do both at once was also possible, something which was continuously helpful when you were indecisive about preferences. Epic have even admitted that designing UT3 for both PC and console at the same time did hamper the individuality that the game should have on each platform, even though it was an excellent business decision.

Another quick example I can also bring up is the ingame user interface in WoW. Not discussing damage/threat meters, item or location mods, the user interface in this game is considered by many to be lacklustre and even a bit excessively cluttered. I am constantly ridiculed for using this default interface, but there are many people like myself who still use it. The reason? It works. It is functional, and even though it may look unimpressive it does the job. It is because of this reason, the simple fact that it is functional, that I have no quarrels with it. Aesthetics are not my primary concern.

Below: WoW - Default UI


How does this affect my ideas? From a scenario such as this I can reinforce something that I have always believed in. No matter how good something may look, if it doesn't function well or ingeniously it is not worth much in the long run. Although the interface design for our game Crusaders does not need to be aesthetically or even visually pleasing, it needs to be basic but comprehensive enough for the user to understand. Interface such as the Google franchise of media (search engine, chat, email etc.) is a classic example of what we should be striving for. This sort of interface design is something we shall be undertaking in the next couple of weeks.

In a place called Ter, Resting.

Interesting. This shall be one of the posts discussed in the one before this, discussing my participation in group work, this time related to the testing of our game 'Crusaders'.

It works! It really, really works. All of our long discussions, theory crafting and debating have finally paid off as we collectively as a full group (Mel, Jeremy and I) played our game using actual dice and counters (purchased by Mel) to represent the forces. Although our first few tests were done using only 6 sided dice, when we finally brought the 20 sided dice into the equation, the results were marvelous. Although we are only using basic materials (2 dimensional notepad board, stapled paper as resources etc.), the insight and success the prototype testing gave us was quite good.

Below: Circular board and 6 sided dice prototyping


Although I shall try and avoid mentioning information discussed in both my peer's blogs, some points we uncovered should be discussed regardless. What we noticed with the introduction of the 20 sided dies was that the chances of beating a larger force or alliance were drastically increased. The chances of winning when two 20 sided dies were competing against only a single was slightly lower than when two six sided dies fought against only one. This is excellent proof of our theory as it encourages players to perform offensive rather than defensive maneuvers and tactics, something we originally thought would be problematic.

Something of concern however is the strength and relationship of alliances. The alliances themselves are loose by default as they should really only be established via communication between players, not forced or even suggested by any formal game rules. However, the ability to work together is slightly hampered. The suggestion of a unified move where two players could sacrifice their individual turns and roll 'together' was brought up and is still in debate. It would not go without consequences however, maybe only allowing 1/2 the dice roll number and giving the target player/s two dice rolls in succession afterwards (whether they win or lose). It adds a strategic and coordinated element on positioning into play as well as the risk of losing and giving your opponent a greater lead.

We also tried a hexagonal shaped board which was also quite successful. Originally the circular shaped board presented troubles with inequalities with resource distribution per tier, however the hexagonal shaped seems to overcome this problem to an extent (ie. fewer nodes at higher tiers, more at lower). One slight problem with the hexagonal board is that games could potentially become longer as well as confusing for multiple (6?) players. The board design is something that will be put under review for the moment, though the affects it has on the game is really only minimal.

Below: Hexagonal board and 20 sided dice


The ability to change an alliance during a counter-attack (ie. a defender who attacks an army gets attacked by an ally in the same region) was also brought up and thought to greatly enhance the possibilities of betrayal in our game, something we are striving to represent.

To reflect on my participation during this phase of testing, I would have to say I played my part at an equal beneficially competitive level. The three of us all managed to win the game at some point, all devising various strategies to uncover exploits and/or broken game mechanics. While Mel undertook an interesting ramp disabling tactic that skewed the 'time' game in his favour, I personally took a very defensive, turtle like approach, moving my forces as close together as possible and creating ramps in fast succession. Both were proven to have strengths and weaknesses, the roll of the dice being the number one deciding factor. I raised some interesting points (such as the betrayal aspect) and we discussed some ideas as a group that we think would help the game 'flow' better. Overall though, the testing was successful and the game had proven to be fun to play, something we were all worried about early on.

Blog post criteria heads up

Okidoke. Recently some criteria regarding the format of these blog posts has been released, explaining slightly more specifically what each should be about (3 different categories). Although my posts have been conforming to the latter two criteria, I do not really have too much demonstration for the first type, that being 'reflection on participation' in group work. Therefore, some of posts in the future will take on a slightly different format in order to fill this criteria.

Because I have been staying up to date with these every week, I have already completed 10 of the required 16 posts for section two. Instead of wasting time overhauling previous posts to better conform to one of the 2 specific latter criterias (ie. outlining and evaluating own ideas, identifying and evaluating theory) I shall simply say that there should be enough information in each of these previous posts to conform to one of the two, if not both. The format of each generally follows some type of discussion, whether fact or opinionated, about the theory and effects of commercial games. The posts generally end with a quick run down of my own ideas regarding the subject, as well as how they could be used in our game Crusaders. Hopefully this can be clearly seen in each post.