Game Design II

Wow! So I just had my first session with this class today, and I have to say it was awesome.

The course is run as if the class were a developing team, and the two instructors are the publishers. We are going to be graded at four milestones on how we have performed and whether we have reached our deadlines. This parodies how real development teams work; their publisher sets a milestone, at which time the developer shows what work they have accomplished, and if the publisher is satisfied they will continue to pay the developer for the next step of the process.

There are about 10-11 of us right now in the class, all of us with varying degress of skill and different areas of expertise. I've been pulled in for my writing/storytelling skills, my basic knowledge of the spanish language (much of the game is in spanish), and for general design and creativity.

The class is four hours long, but it went by so fast I wished it was longer. I repeat: I had a four hour course, no break, and I wanted it to be LONGER. For the vast majority of the class we just sat around in a computer lab giving progress reports, throwing ideas around and developing what we had started with. I caught on to what the project was pretty quickly, so it wasn't a problem that I joined late. I actually started to give my input and some new ideas within the first hour. I proposed a relationship meter for in the game, similar to what to the relationships with the gods in the upcoming title Rise of the Argonauts. I also helped out a bit with the story and believability of the game.

The idea of the game is pretty cool. On the most basic level, its an educational game designed to teach spanish. But that makes it sound lame, which it is not. It is a new type of educational game, called an immersive learning game. This means that gameplay and entertainment value are still high priorities, so it doesn't become a text-based or multiple-choice "game." The game will run on Source, Half-Life's engine, it will be played with Wii-motes and involve the appropriately silly Wii actions, and will utilize a brand-new virtual reality style mechanic.

This is going to be one kick-ass spanish learning game.

- Scott

Grocery Gamers

So I've been traveling back to college over the last few days, and yesterday I went to ShopRite to get food for the semester. I was paying for everything up front when I overheard a conversation about video games from the line next to me. I looked over to see the employee discussing his views on the new systems, but I couldn't figure out who he was talking to.

Then the women he is helping, who looked to be in her late 50's, starts bragging about how high her scores are in Wii Bowling. I was surprised at first to see who was discussing gaming, but I have been hearing more and more that the Wii is reaching new demographics.

The cashier went on to talk about his XBox 360, saying that it was mostly a system for FPS's. Perhaps he was just trying to validate the woman's choice in a system by saying she wouldn't have liked the 360. Maybe she wouldn't.

But I wouldn't say its just a system of shooters, it has a lot of other great offerings. But anyway, she went on to talk about different games on the Wii for a few minutes, swapping stories of tennis matches and other games with the cashier. She also asked the cashier about the PS3, and why she hadn't heard much about it since the launch. He told her that it was over-priced and a bad system, and that he was vehemently boycotting it.

This was a pretty interesting experience for me, especially after my conversation with my dentist. Gamers are everywhere and they are everyone. Even the guy cleaning your teeth or the old lady getting canned soup. Wii and other games are helping to break down barriers to make gaming really take over our country, even our world, as the dominant form of entertainment.

And I have to agree with the cashier: the PS3 isn't helping.

- Scott

Endless Battles in Middle-Earth

So I've been playing Battle for Middle-earth lately, still doing a lot of skirmishes as I try and hone my skills. In my first impressions of the game, I said I thought it would be hard: I was right.

My experience with Red Alert 2 did not prepare me for these drawn-out, viscious fights, nor the resourceful and strategic computer players featured in the skirmish mode. I realize now that BFME sets the stage for much longer, more epic, and more strategically difficult matches. When playing a large map with only 2 players, all of the other starting points or camps/castles are still in the game, only they are neutral. Added to these start points are expansion points, places where new 'Citadels' and structures can be built. In order to defeat the enemy, you must destroy all of their Citadels (so that they cannot repair/rebuild structures) and then all of their other buildings.

The easy computer players in BFME are like most of the comps in RA2, they don't know how to expand well, they don't know how to create back-up bases or safeguards for survival, and they don't know how to wage a prolonged, dirty fight. The medium computer players in BFME are not this simple.

The matches against the meds started out almost the same as the other matches, and I thought that a few slightly larger attacks, with new Trolls added, were all that I would see. So I organized a quick attack force, summoned some Ally armies, and moved in to wipe out the enemy. My attacking forces ran right into a pair of Oliphaunts coming my way, which effectively ruined my cavalry. Then I met with some of the new weather and special effects of the enemy, along with renewed assaults by Catapaults, Trolls & Oliphaunts. I still was faring fairly well, but then the level started shaking violenetly, and to my utter dismay, a massive Balrog erupted from the earth right next to my base. I lost that match, and badly.

But I like to think that I learn from my mistakes, and that I am a fast learner. So I did a few easy matches the following day to boost my confidence, then went after the medium again. This time would be different.

I expanded as fast as possible at the beginning, quickly covering the majority of the match. I tried to use these vast resources to churn out defenses, but the enemy managed to repeatedly destroy my forward outposts. I finally got my array of heroes and special skills/summoned armies ready, and moved in for the kill. But the enemy didn't die there.

I realized that while I had been finishing off his base, he had moved in force against my main base. When the Balrog joined in, my Gondor home-base was wiped out. I set up camp in what had been the enemy's base, and round 2 began. The battle raged on for almost three hours, during which the enemy completely wiped one of my bases at least five times. But I was using my Gandalf and summoned armies skillfully, to always stay a step ahead of the enemy. Every time they destroyed a base, I set up 2 new ones. I soon ran out of conventional forces and structures, and was using ONLY my heroes and summoned allies. In my bases I merely built defenses to slow down the enemy's progresss. I moved quickly, running Gandalf around, trying to conquer all of the expansion points so the enemy could have none.

Finally, after about 3 hours and a few thousand lost troops, I managed to destroy the enemy's last base. He was working on building another, for he had been copying my build and move on technique, but I was faster and had been gaining on him. I hadn't known this was his last base, I knew though that he was running low on potential hiding places.

I have to say, that victory was one of my proudest achievements in a video game in recent months. I earned that win, through quick-clicking, fast-thinking, adaptable reactions and a constantly evolving strategic plan. I think this game will keep me going for quite a while :)

- Scott

My Dentist on Gaming Coverage

So I just got back from a visit to the dentist, which was far more interesting than I would have expected.

My dentist, it turns out, plays World of Warcraft.

After asking me what my major was, we had launched into a conversation about American media. He thought that major newspapers and magazines were tending to be too one-sided or cliched, one example being their treatment of video games. He said that ever article about gaming in mainstream media is either about gaming causing violence or about Second Life. I agree.

I told him then what my ambition is: to write about gaming, from the perspective of a real gamer, for the masses. My dentist summed up my view exactly when he said that mainstream media does not offer anything of interest to gamers. All of their stories are either about anti-gaming crusades, or are some weak heartless stories about Halo 3 or Second Life, written by a reporter who obviously knows nothing about games.

I want to change that. I want to be a reporter who knows games, who plays them and loves them and reads about them, but can write about them for the general public. Imagine how many younger poeple the NYT could reach if it had a few gaming articles every week? And not just fluff articles or sales reports, but real articles that really examine the games and the industry. Getting just a couple gaming reporters to bolster the entertainment section could add considerably to papers' lagging sales. This is a demographic that journalists around the country are trying to reach.

It was really nice to hear an average, hardworking gamer like my dentist voice the same concerns and hopes that I feel. He also agrees with me that the biggest problem with gaming is not video game violence, but gaming addiction, especially with MMO's. My dentist played both Everquest and WoW, and has a friend who has succumbed to a life of fast-food and fatness because of his addiction to Second Life.

Everyone in America is playing games now, even dentists. So its time to acknowledge this evolution by really covering the gaming industry in mainstream media.

- Scott

Worst Shooter Ever?

I am sure that everyone out there has played some bad games in their lives - I have too - but I think this one took the cake.

It was an FPS, Goldeneye: Rogue Agent. For those who don’t know the premise of the game, it is supposed to be a sequel/remake of sorts of Goldeneye (the old N64 favorite) except this time the player plays through the game as a bad guy. I haven’t played the missions, but the multi-player matches were enough to tell me that I never want to play this game again (unless I am delirious or drinking, in which case it might be funny). Where do I start…

The graphics on the game were so shoddy that I often couldn’t tell if I was shooting at a column or at an opponent. The level designs and lighting effects did not help. The first level we played was so dark that I often couldn’t see where I was going, what I was doing or who was shooting at me. The levels were often designed symmetrically, like one level we played in a basement with steam pipes. This meant that you could never tell which part of the level you were in, because they all looked the same. I was playing a team match, but I couldn’t even find my teammate, much less my enemies, in the confusing similar rooms.

With skilled use of radar, we could have still managed to find each other and fight, even though the levels, lighting and graphics were horrible. But to my utter dismay, the game didn’t have radar at all! I can’t think of ever playing a multi-player shooter that didn’t have radar. Even the original Goldeneye probably had radar, to navigate larger levels like the Bunker. I would often run right by enemies and not even know it, or mistake the enemy for my teammate, since the character models all looked so similar.

Again, this problem could have been negated somewhat with a decent targeting and crosshairs system. If my crosshairs had turned red when I aimed at my enemy, I wouldn’t have thought he was my teammate. But did it turn red? No, of course not. The crosshairs didn’t change at all between looking at different people and objects. The player’s name did show up, but I usually couldn’t remember which players were on my team at the time, what game names my cousins had used, or even read the small, cramped letters with the (again) bad lighting and graphics.

The crosshairs were also way too big and inaccurate (with a shotgun, they was as big as a person). While I understand that a gun might not be very accurate, and would thus have a large range of where it might hit, I should at least have the OPTION to have good aim. The crosshairs were so big that my entire enemy was within it, so I would try and guess whether or not the middle of the crosshairs was near his head or chest. It usually wasn’t. I had a lower hit percentage in this game than in any other game I have played in the last few years. Many of the the levels we played were small and had many cramped corridors and corners, meaning that our gunfights were usually at point-blank range. Point-blank gunfights where I still couldn’t hit the enemy, even with shotguns and machine guns.

The few times I DID manage to hit my enemy, I noticed that the damage/hit sensors were awful. I would shoot my enemy repeatedly in the face or back of the head, and the hits would do almost nothing. He would turn around and shoot me once or twice in the body, with the same exact gun, and I would die. The game seemed to have a reverse hit sensor; the better our aim, the more shots it took to kill the enemy.

When I was getting shot at, I often did not even realize it. It took me until the third match to realize that the strange dots I was seeing flashing on my screen were supposed to signify blood or sweat because I was under attack.

Then there were the guns themselves. The game tried to copy Halo’s formula, by only allowing 2 guns at a time, and allowing players to dual wield. The result is that when you run over a gun, two buttons show up, one to switch weapons, one to dual wield. But you wouldn’t know that was what they did unless someone told you. Dual wielding was possibly worse though, as the targeting system got even more difficult to hit with. The guns themselves were awful, simple designs and were nowhere near as effective as they should have been. I usually lost when I shot my enemies with shotguns at close range while they used pistols. The game also had 2 grenades for each player when they spawned, used similarly to in Halo. But the grenades bounced madly away in most cases, unless you managed to throw one directly at an opponent, in which case they exploded on impact. But it was almost impossible to get a direct hit, as the crappy crosshairs abandons you completely when trying to aim your grenades.

Then finally, there were the flukes. Those times when I would be running down an empty corridor and randomly explode. I would ask my cousins who had killed me, only to find out that none of them had even been shooting. Or the times that I shot someone with a pistol, and the first hit to their arm made THEM explode, causing them to fly across the level as if they’d been hit with a bazooka. There were the times where my character would randomly start crouching and un-crouching without my hitting any buttons. There were the times when I suddenly could shoot my teammate and kill him, but a minute later, in the same match, team attack would be off again.

I was hopelessly lost and frustrated throughout this entire game; I don’t even know if I won the matches or not. I recommend this game to absolutely no one. If you already purchased the game, try and get your money back, and may God have mercy on your souls.

- Scott

Online Gaming can Help

So Online Gaming gets a lot of crap from people. Whether its fellow gamers, parents or the media, it seems like everyone has an opinion on how evil MMO's can be. While I admit the games are addicting, and can become a problem (I had an addiction problem with Guild Wars) I also would like to speak out in defense of Online Gaming.

Last night I was in a very bad funk. For winter break I am home in Minnesota, about 1200 miles away from my girlfriend and all of my friends. And besides the loneliness of being out here, there were a lot of other problems going down last night. So my girlfriend suggests I go on Guild Wars and just kill some stuff, since she knows that I like to play the game. I hadn't really played in over a month, not since I "kicked the habit," but I decided to try it. So I went on and started talking to some people in one of the big towns. Two and a half hours later, I was still talking to people, hadn't killed a single thing, and was feeling better than I had in days.

I found what I needed in the game, both in terms of social interaction and feeling better about myself, to turn around one of my most serious bad moods in months. I talked to fellow gamers about Guild Wars, about other games that they liked to play, about friends and family, about job applications, game & business ethics, even my website. A few of the gamers added me to their friends list, a few said they'd check out my site to see my RA2 walkthrough (a lot of RA2 fans were on last night) and many wished me luck with my applications. It was nice to have good conversations with so many poeple.

Critics would say that I don't know any of these people in real life, and that this is false social interaction or an illusion of having friends. What is the difference really? I met new people, got to know them through talking to them about their ideas, their preferences and their hopes. I had good, serious conversations about life and about a passion we all share, gaming. While I may not have been able to see their faces, those are real people, and where ever they are in the world they were feeling the same way I was, happy to find a friend to talk to online, when they probably were missing their friends as much as I was. True, I don't know their real age or gender, they could have lied, but many of the gamers I talked to admitted to being in their 30's, their 40's, even one guy who was 59. People were honest, they were friendly, and we all benefited from the interaction. We took breaks from our conversations to give advice to some newer players who were confused, and to report some scammers and cheaters who tried to swindle poeple in our midst. So not only did we ourselves enjoy the night, we made the game a little more honest and a little more fun to play.

I may talk to some of those poeple again, I may not. But it makes no difference in proving the point. My "one night stand" conversations gave me new insight into a lot of aspects of my personal life and gaming life, and that is a real thing.

To add to the "feel good" feeling, I was giving away a lot of free items to newer players last night. I've achieved all of my goals of the items and levels I'd like to beat, so anything extra I get I really don't need. So I felt the satisfaction of being so content in the game that I could give away really good free items, and not feel the selfish need to keep them or sell them. I could be charitable to noobs. One newer player came up to me and admired my minipet, and said he wished he could get one but he'd never be able to afford one. I opened a trade with him, and to his surprise gave him a free pet. That really made his night, and made me feel good too.

So to all those who slam online gaming, for the amount of time players put in or for the "false" social interactions, back off. My time input pays off every time I can be charitable to people. It pays off every time I have a good conversation with people online. It paid off big time last night. Like with most things, a feel bad examples have tarnished the whole, and like most things, the whole really isn't bad. So if you're lonely and far from your friends, try some online gaming, it really can help.

- Scott

Battle for Middle-Earth: 1st Impressions

Wow, I just loaded this game last night, and I'm already a fan.

This definitely feels harder than the RTS games that I am used to, which are mainly in the Command & Conquer series. The lack of a Spy Sattelite or similar structure (which allowed a player to view the whole map in Red Alert 2) makes heading off different enemy units much more difficult. Even if you played the Soviets in RA2, you could still see any land you had uncovered. The less-revealing fog of war in this game adds significantly to the difficulty.

That said, I am quickly over-coming my lazy RA2 habits and getting used to the new combat. I've been exploring different types of units and attacks. Been doing mostly skirmishes so far (that's what these screenshots are from) until I get the hang of the controls and play style. Plus... the game keeps track of which maps you've "vanquished" and keeps stats and ranking on your skirmish profile. I have to say, I really wanted to hit rank 2 already today, so I cleared 5 maps of their Mordor armies.

I've included some screenshots of some of my favorite moves and tactics from my skirmishes. The cavalry charges are a lot of fun, it's amazing to see whole squads of enemy infantry go down under the hooves of your horsemen. Massive arrow storms were also pretty effective, especially if combined between archers, heroes and defensive towers (called Keeps). Summoned allies were pretty sweet as well, I beat one skirmish using almost solely my summoned armies. While the Rohan cavalry was strong, I favored the summoned Elven archers, they could mow down enemies at an alarming rate. And finally there were the heroes, with the godfather of them all, Gandalf. He cost 6000 resources to make, more than anything else in game, but starts out at Rank 5 and is already worth a small army by himself. His array of magical attacks were devastating, I had him take point when wiping out one of my enemy's bases.

I have yet to explore the missions in this game, and we'll see if I can find good competition online, but my first impression with BFME was good. It's tough, it's fast-moving and action-packed, it follows the franchise well, and best of all, it uses Howard Shore's amazing LotR soundtrack. I used to play Shore on my iTunes while I played Guild Wars; this game plays it for me!

- Scott

Halo 3: First Impressions

When it comes to Halo, it seems like people either love it or hate it.
I think I can officially say now: I am with the 'love its.'

But I understand where all of the controversy comes from. The game has gotten more attention, more hype, and more die-hard fans than any modern series I can think of. The reviews for the first installment were stellar, and I don't think the sequels have been much worse. So with so many people loving it, naturally the question everyone wants to answer is: why?

So you get the legions of skeptics, critics, competing developers, and that last group that I used to be in, those who don't own an X-Box and therefore hate to admit X-Box has good games.

After a lot of hands-on time with Halo 3, I have to say my views have changed. First of all, to all those afore-mentioned critics and skeptics, yes, it is over-rated. It is a great game, one of the best multiplayer shooters I have ever played, but it IS NOT THE ONLY GOOD GAME. The problem comes from gamers who buy or play nothing BUT Halo, who act like it is the ONLY game worth playing. It isn't.

That said, I'd like to fondly reminisce about the many hours I've recently spent with this game, and in the process help answer that nagging question the skeptics pose. Note that I do not own Halo 3, or an X-Box 360, so my experience is from playing on my cousin's system at family get-togethers. So if there are things I've missed, forgive me. But I 've played enough to see that Halo has managed to get almost everything right.

I love the fact that they incorporate the 'nades and the beat-downs so that they are a part of every fight. I don't think I played a single boring shoot-out, because there was always a lot of movement, 'nade throwing and dodging, and the possibility that if one of us got close enough we could beat the other guy down. It kept things VERY interesting. I recognized during the first block of time I had with the game (Thanksgiving break) how important nades were to each and every fight, so I worked a lot lately on this. I can say now that my nade placement is very good, it allowed me to beat my cousins in a lot of fire-fights where I had less health or inferior guns.

The beat-downs I haven't really gotten the hang of yet, the button placement to do them just doesn't work well for me. I used my brother this morning though as a test-dummy, he's too slow and inexperienced with shooters to be serious competition. So after practicing my beat-downs on him, I was able to use the technique more frequently during actual matches, and I think with more practice I'll get more used to it.

While I still haven't gotten good enough to beat my cousin who owns the game, I have improved drastically in the 4 or 5 days I got to play. I consistently get around 2/3 as many kills as he does, and I think I've passed up all my other cousins who don't own the game. I had a few close matches last night where I almost beat my cousin's team. I hope I can find more people at college to play with, until I can save up enough money to get a new system of my own.

But anyways, it's been an enjoyable couple of days that I've spent with the world's best-known shooter series.

- Scott

Red Alert 2 Replay

I just finished re-playing the Allied mission campaign on this game, it never gets old. It's like a fine wine that only gets better as the years pass.

What is it about this game that makes it so fun, so addicting, so good to replay again and again? Let's think...

• Well it has an awesome soundtrack for one, a great combination of machine sounds and rock music to get you pumped up no matter what the level.
  
• The satisfaction of building a massive strike force (shock and awe baby!) never gets old. Who can get bored while watching their 50 3-star veteran soldiers unload with their heavy machine guns, or while sending in four squadrons of planes to wipe out all of the enemy's production power in one fell swoop?
  
• The strategy, of course, is a big part of it. Position your Mirage Tanks to take out incoming infantry waves, Chronosphere a couple of veteran Prism Tanks behind enemy lines to wreak havoc, or fly some engineers in a Blackhack Chopper to take control of the enemies Nuclear Reactor on the hill.

• Finally, it has very different levels with different types of units and strategies needed to beat each level. And most importantly the levels are HARD!

The SEALs level really tests your finger-speed, reactions and strategy. The two island and water levels require a deep understanding of the units and their strengths and weaknesses. And don't even get me started on the final mission, where you must take out the Kremlin and the black Soviet forces. They took out my construction yard and all of my power plants, but I STILL managed to take them down. And with a dramatic flair, I might add.

Truly a satisfying game, again and again.

- Scott