Johnny Kaotic

New Galactic Agents Blog

2011-12-01T01:09:00.000-05:00

Hey Check out the new Galactic Agents Blog

http://galacticagents.blogspot.com/

In time, It'll have everything you need to know about the game, and some stuff you could probably do without knowing, but just for kicks...we'll tell you anyway.

Galactic Agents is where all my time has been going lately. I've been pouring everything I have into it, from Artwork to Game Design Theory. So everything I would have been talking about here has been put into practice inside of that project.

I'd like to go into detail about that, but I'll keep my mouth shut till things are just a bit more solid.
No use talking in depth about features that may not even exist by the time anyone gets to play it.

Too immature for mature content.

2011-10-16T20:32:00.003-04:00

It kinda bugs me that adult games are so unwelcome in the game industry to the point that theirs no real incentive to develop any (outside of passion)
And this time I do mean the XXX kind of adult games.

If a developer created an adult game. Their are many publishers who would not take it, beyond that barrier their are many distributors at retail and online who would not carry it, and even beyond that, most major console developers would not even allow it on their system.

That sucks.
For an industry that loves to compare itself to film, and boast about how much better it is than the film industry, you'd think it wouldn't be so close mined about the issue.
It makes me feel like the whole AO rating from the ESRB is more of a out of bounds warning system rather than an actual rating. of the few games that have actually gotten the AO rating, they've all gone back and edited their content to get a M rating.
and the few games that are intentionally adult are just so...crap.

What the hell happened to Leisure Suit Larry?

If I ever get down on my luck, or once again find myself working with adult films again, I may try and change this.

Completely unrelated...
Galactic Agents is shaping up nicely and should have it's own dedicated place on the web soon.

KillJoy Interactive takes form.

2011-09-29T06:18:00.000-04:00

Its been more than just a few months since I last updated, and theirs been some pretty interesting developments that have taken place. The primary one being that, Killjoy Interactive is OFFICIAL now, and has a dedicated team behind it working on its first title, Galactic Agents.
So stay tuned on that.

In the mean time, I'll try not to let 8 months go by between now and the next post!

The Pack Mule's gotta die...

2011-01-08T04:03:00.000-05:00

Taking inspiration from what I think was an intentionally silly piece of artwork, probably meant to poke fun at various dungeon based games inventory systems, I decided to try and address the issue head on by essentially creating a game that had “no inventory system”

view the image HERE...

and be sure to check out the rest of the site.

http://www.waynereynolds.com/

Like the inspirational image...every piece of equipment the player had could be seen on the character weather he carried it in his hands, wore it on his person, or if it was attached by some other means. The bottom line though, is that the player could easily see all that he owned at a glance, without having to scroll through a menu or look at an inventory grid.

I came to realize that any game that could do this, and animate well, could potentially have the power to both create and maintain a high level of immersion, and keep the player connected into the game world for longer periods of time.

While doing some research, and discussing inventory systems with a friend, he pointed out that many of them could get out of hand, and explained how had played a game that actually allowed him to carry a very large and unrealistic sum of items as well as 6 additional backpacks full of even more items.

By default my game wouldn't have the problem of being unrealistic in that respect. But it would prove to have issues of its own.

The first of these being the amount of items that could be carried.

6 backpacks and hundreds of items was never the intention. But the space I was working working did seem kind of limited. At current count the most items that can be carried by the player are about 6. which admittedly isn't very impressive.

The next issue was dealing with the placement of each item.

With this issue I had to work within several rules that could potentially conflict with one another.

- Does the placement of the equipment make logical sense?

- Is it the item located in an easily recognizable place, so that the player could easily identify it as well as its use?

-Is the item in a place were it can be accessed quickly, and keep associated animation times short? We don't want the player character to be vulnerable for very long periods of times do to overly long equipment usage animations.

Currently progress on this inventoryless system is working and looking good, though the item count may have to remain small.

The biggest issue to overcome is the sheer amount of character animations that have to be done to pull this off.

“Is it Co-op or is just two players?

2010-12-23T01:51:00.001-05:00

This was an excellent question that I was recently asked about a game I was trying to convince someone to play with me. Its the kind of question that really puts things into perspective.

With companies seeming to make a push away from the single player only direction, I think this a question we'll start to see a lot more of.

At one stage in the industry any game that allowed two players to ally together against the badguys and complete the campaign was a considered a co-op play.

Moving forward in the industry I think we need to rethink what co-op play really means.

And I think we should start asking questions of any game that claims to have it.

The first and probably most important question...

Is the second player character necessary?

In a lot of games the 2^nd player really isn't necessary to complete the game campaign. Many times a game will feature a campaign mode that is geared specifically for a single player, and the addition if a 2^nd player doesn't change the campaign in any significant way. Sometimes because the game is being played by two players the enemy count will go up. But realistically this is just an increase in difficulty level simply to balance against the extra firepower that you call a team mate.

Does the 2^nd player character even matter in the narrative?

This question can often go right along with the first and is probably the most important question for the person who will take on the role of “Player 2.” from that persons perspective the question really asks. “Will I be acknowledged?” there are a great many games that only acknowledge the existence of the 1^st player, leaving player 2 out of the cut-scenes, or with no speaking parts, with no specific reason to even around and it can sometimes conflict with the narrative all together.

Luigi saves the day, but Mario gets the princess...why? Because luigi like many 2^nd player options is a phantom character who really doesn't even exist.

It can even get to the point where it becomes frustration.

The person taking the role of Player 1, can be really off is game, score very little, be a constant liability, and even a burden to the team, leaving the person in the role of Player 2 do ALL of the work.

However upon completion of the mission. Player 1 is the person who receives the merit, while player two receives....absolutely nothing.

Do the players really need each other?

Beyond providing covering fire, and possibly reviving each other, are the players codependent on one another in order to achieve success? Something as simple as navigating the environment can usually answer this question. If you literally cannot advance further in the environment without co-operating with each other than you've probably got a real co-op game on your hands.

This can go beyond getting through the environment, and extend to things like providing resources for each one another, or lending unique skills if players varied skillsets.

so on another note...

I'm going back to basics with the project before I start to really lose sight of what I'm trying to do with it, and in going back to that I'm going to be focusing most of my attention on the gameplay rather than the artwork for a while.

It was really nice to see the project starting take form artistically, but I really need to makes sure that the game itself provides the experience that I need it to first. So moving forward you'll probably see a lot of really bland looking models and textures.

I'm getting ready to launch an website dedicated to the project. If you want to keep tabs on the project, the new site should be a great way to do so. I'm planning to have interactive play sessions that you can take part in via the web.

Talking With Your Fists...

2010-12-05T23:54:00.001-05:00

So I've been working a lot on the melee combat of the game,
and I'm discovering a great deal about combat in gaming in general.

Its also leading me down a path to develop some very basic level AI, which is kinda fun, as the levels start to feel a lot less empty when they are populated by people who are trying to kill you.

Combat is one of the most important parts of a game. In fact I would even go as far as to argue, that until you have established a working combat system, that the project is little more than a Tech Demo.

Many people see combat as way to fill space, or add difficulty to a game. A way to add challenge to an otherwise simple project, or simply as interactive sessions that must be completed to move the story forward.

While it can do these things, I feel like Combats most important function is to add to the narrative of the game, and is key in helping to easily project the concept of the game to potential players.

Once a combat system is in place. you have done quite a few things. 1st you have clearly designated who the story's protagonist is, and 2nd You have designated his opponents as the antagonists.
Combat is Conflict in its purest form, and conflict is the heart of any story worth telling.
People automatically understand physical fighting, and if you can place relevant character designs on the characters in that fight, then you have visually communicated the heart of the game.

“Its about These Guys Vs. Those Guys” the “why” is something that can be included in the game through various other means.

That said, I have to reiterate that combat will probably be very simple, and only be made of singular attacks rather than combos.
This is only a prototype after all.

After I have finished implementing the first part of the combat system, which should be fairly soon. I'm thinking about opening up the project to a wider audience. I'm coming to a stage in the project where it has become mature enough where additional opinions will help its growth rather than hinder it.

Combat Systems: Extended

And now for something different...

2010-11-11T07:27:00.000-05:00

I'm changing the direction of the game here.

When I started the idea was to make a really sweet medieval fantasy dungeon crawler/hack n slash.

Maybe its just me...maybe I'm only aware of them because I'm making one...

(Like how everyone seems to suddenly drive the same car you drive right after you get a new one?)

But it seems like theirs a quite a bit of those games on the horizon.

and I think the last thing any good game designer wants is for their game to be dubbed a “clone”

I have 2 options...

The first option would be to continue as I have been and hope that my game has enough new features or better values features to give it an edge over the other similar games it will directly contend with.

Change up the flavor of the game a bit.

Follow through with the base level gameplay concept, but really stir the pot when it comes to the look and feel of the game, and get away from that medieval motif and all of the gameplay nuances that are dictated by it, all the while discovering and embracing the new gameplay points a new style might bring to the table.

I've already chosen a new style to follow, but I'm not quite sure how to describe it, and I'm not sure I should at the moment. I will say that, those who know me well enough, probably have a good idea.

I do feel slightly hypocritical on this decision.

If I were working with a team on this I wouldn't ever consider a direction change. And if I wasn't the person calling the shots and the decision was made to make such a drastic change. I'd think it was a very poor one. Theirs things to consider like budgets and talent evaluation.

However...I'm not working with a team...its just me.

And theirs no budget, so I don't have to worry about any costs and spending.

Additionally, this time around I'm the little guy, (well littler than I had been before) and I NEED something that's going to make me stand out above the rest.

Notice theirs no image with todays post?

Thats just how different it is.

Domestic Violence: Player Combat And the Game World

2010-10-29T08:52:00.000-04:00

So a few nights ago I added the beginings of combat...

it was literally a game changer...

Playing previous versions of the game that didn't yet have combat felt completely different in comparison.

Despite everything already being there, weapons, and even combat animations, having something to actually hit and kill really made a big difference. At one time I must of spent nearly 15 minutes trying to “kill” a sphere and I enjoyed it.

For a while I couldn't seem to run a test session without absolutely killing every monster in the level before ending it. Even the choice of music changed.

I suspect it has something to do with the pace.

You could always 'run' in the prototype since the first build, but it wasn't something I made much use off till I had stuff to kill. To follow the pace I had to choose a tune with a higher tempo and a nice beat.

(Pace and music is something I was very aware of in Doom2, and a few fighting games, but very few other games.)

Combat really started to sort of tie all the other the elements I built before it together.

I had already had a health management system complete with health items etc, running and vaulting.

But it seems as if adding combat to the game has really given it all purpose.

It has me considering starting with combat in future projects, instead of holding off near the end.

Interior decorating...

I just recently started working on a new environment.

Before I started the project I had done some testing, and had a character moving around in a completely generic dungeon type of environment.

With the launch of new project I hadn't bothered to make any real environments, and so everything was pretty much a big vast and open space.

I found that a few things happened when I started building the new interior environment.

First.

The tone and pace of the game really relaxed itself while I was walking (not running) around the interior. I had to again change the BGM to match the what I was feeling as a gamer.

Going back to the very open section of the game was almost overwhelming.

From another gamers perspective: “I didn't really know what the hell I supposed to be doing.”

There really wasn't anything to do, at that stage in development, but I suspect it was that overwhelming feeling that made him come to that conclusion so quickly.

Second.

Focus. It was far easier to assess one room or corridor, than it was to try and take in everything at once.

I think that might be one of the initial draws of the open-world experience. “Everything At Once!” its that overwhelming feeling, that you don't have nearly as much control or influence of the game world at all. And in those particular games, that's a very welcome feeling.

However I've decided that that I want to try and make this game be all about your influence over the game world. Its leading me to consider leaving out wide open spaces completely.

I think it was Bill Clinton, on the Daily Show, when talking about the difference between being president and Not being president, saying something to the effect of...

“You can do a little bit in a lot of areas, but you can do a lot in a little area.”

That's not a strict quote btw.

Third.

Character presence shot through the roof. Which was really comforting to me, coming from a character design background. Revisiting the open spaces of the game made my character presence feel significantly diminished. I felt like I was controlling a smaller character than the one in the interior. Had I not done it myself, I'd have argued that at least the camera distance had changed, even though it had not.

Character presence has always been something that I felt very strongly about. The common trend in triple A game design at the moment seems to be to go with a very God of War style view of the character, which to me, seems like a betrayal to the poor artist who designed the main character.

All the details of his work are pulled away from the viewer/gamer and restricted to Cutscenes.

I feel like if you want to make your audience really connect to your character, then you need to really show him off, not in the Non-interactive portions of the game, but in part of the game where the players actions and the characters actions have merged, and the line between the gamer and the player character is blurred.

That's probably why I haven't been interested at all by the God of War games or its various clones. The game-play always reminds me of the old NES days where you controlled a little pixelated featureless sprite man, who jumped and hit things.

Its 2010, and now we control a little featureless(due to camera distance) polygon man who jumps and hits things? Seriously?

For me a game that really gets what I'm talking about is Arkham Asylum. Ofcourse I have to wonder if the only reason they got it right was because of the heavy comic book influence.

In comics the mindset is to always make your hero appear larger than life in just about every panel he's in. In Arkham Asylum, Batman can take up half the screen space at times....and its completely Ok, because he's never actually in the way...How could he be? He's the star of the damn game!

Son of the Game...

2010-10-20T05:14:00.001-04:00

So for a while I've been hard at work on KJInt's first game project.

However, its not the game I started out making or that I described in the previous posts.

Instead I was testing out a simple idea, and it took on the life of a project of its own.

And so here we are, with the first post about it being all about Version 2.

Following Vavles sort of 'Build Destroy Build' philosophy.

I've ripped out the guts of Version 1 and I'm a good way through the 2nd version of the prototype.

I'm easily seeing the benefits of the method.

Its like how most franchise sequels get better and tighter in the 2nd game as its a more concentrated version with all the crap scooped out.

Only this way the first game starts out as a pure concentrated version.

This time around, the focus is on getting a 2nd player in the game.

I looked into doing it via networking, and I cant make sense of it.

However split-screen play is still on the table. Unfortunately its practically going to require that people who want to play it from the same machine have at least 1 gamepad. Because theirs just NO WAY that 2 people can share a keyboard/mouse to play.

(On that note... Thats probably why the PC game industry constantly yields to the console industry. Local Multiplayer sessions are scarce, and people generally don't crowed around a desktop/laptop anyway, which really limits is social value when compared to a console.)

Anyway...

Before I get to the Split-screen Co-op Features,

I'm focusing on making the game just play smoother than it did.

In v1..

Their were lots of different things you could do, but you were generally had to do them independently of one another. The major culprit being the Aggressive Mode. when you went into an Aggro state, you couldn't do anything but walk around and swing your weapon. you couldn't pickup new weapons or items, use items, or interact with people until you manually turned Aggro off. It was all very rigid.

In V2..

Everything you could do in V1 will probably still stand. However You'll be able to do most things regardless of whether you're, in a Relaxed state or Aggro state. Additionally theirs no more manual switching between the two. As of right now, your character will remain relaxed, until you hit an attack button, then he'll seamlessly go aggro, If you don't hit an attack button for 3 seconds and/or aren't currently near any aggressive enemies, he'll automatically return to his chill mode.

The different states do more than just turn his fighting stance on/off though.

You can tell if your character is in aggro mode no matter what your doing, as aggro is coming with a complete set of its own animations.

So standing, walking, running, etc, will look different depending on the characters state.

This is what allows you to do everything from any stance.

In addition...theirs also a "Hurt state" complete with its own set of animations too.

It replaces the general relaxed animations if your health falls below 50 hp.

why?

1. If you're not paying attention to the health bar (which I might get rid of) you'll still know when you're in critical condition.

2. It's just so fucking cool...

It really helps the player become immersed in the game when the character is giving you all the information you need and not some colored bars at the edge of the screen. It goes right along with the whole reason I started making the game in the first place... to see if I could make an "inventory system" without using lists or menus.

Having all of these states flow into each other means that I have to animate 3 to 4 versions of the same action, in most cases. Thats not fun, but seeing it all working together and looking very natural is worth it. Knowing that any future players will just "Get It" without a bunch of tutorials and button combos is worth it.

So, so far all of the movement and smoothly flowing between states is currently working, but having ripped out everything and starting from square1, movement is just about the only thing it does right now.

I'm also reworking the weapon system.

back in V1 everything was either a Sword...or a Staff...even if it clearly was a Mace (or Chainsaw)

So this time around weapons will be able to have individual names.

And if I can swing it, they'll also come with simple damage modifiers too.

The damage stats wont be visible to the player. I think making them visible makes it less of an action game, and secondly it takes a lot of the guess work out.

Which is stronger? Excalibur or Masamune?

Wouldn't you rather try them out for yourself instead of having some jerk with a calculator show up and just tell you? Yeah...thought so.

When it comes down to actual combat, I'm not entirely sure that I can really create a combat system in such a short amount of time that really compares with most other games out there. So I imagine its going to be very simple. 1 regular attack, 1 strong attack, and no combo system at all.

So I'll try and make up for it by putting more of an emphasis on exploration. always keeping in mind that "someday" I'll put together a better combat system.

Pics? Videos? Playable Demo?

I've got all that. but at this stage, I'm only sharing them with a select few of people.

I'll put something up when it looks better. when its less Prototype and more Beta.

The Details...

2010-09-30T10:58:00.000-04:00

Ok the details

Honestly at this point they're not any clearer, but that's not for lack of trying.
I've had so many ideas come and go and comeback for a visit over the last couple of days.
The main hold up is that I'm not really sure whether or not I'd like to make an action game or an adventure game somewhere along the lines of Monkey Island, Or better , RE1 without the zombies and shooting. I think after that has been decided the rest will fall in place.

Name: currently unknown. Who names a project at the very beginning anyway?

Genre: I could see people filing this under the Horror label, however I don't believe it to be a fitting one. I'm not actually trying to scare anyone. Perhaps its a Thriller?

High concept:
You play as a protagonists trying to correct the wrongs in the game world. The catch is that the protagonists has a skewed view of the world that also extends to you as a player.

Before you perform an action, you'll first have to try and determine what is real and what isn't.

The game is going to be done entirely in grayscale. Theirs 2 reasons for that.
1.it saves me development time.
2.The look of it really draws you in.

Their isnt much to do here, but it might be enough to give a better idea about the protagonists state of mind than words can.

http://www.johnnykaotic.com/x/perception.html

Talk is Cheap...Do or Die...

2010-09-26T15:34:00.000-04:00

So its been 5 weeks since my last update.

Well, the truth of it is I'm sick of just talking about games.

Talk is cheap, and its a poor substitute for actually making one.

So I'm just going to make one.

Making a game is a very ambitious thing in and of itself.

So I'll need to take care that the game isn't very ambitious in what it offers.

In other words...I'm going to ensure that its a really small game, or else it'll never get done.

So it'll probably more like of those little artsy games you see popping up here and there, like Limbo or Braid. Hopefully it wont be as pretentious as most of those kinds of games usually turn out.

You know, really vague and obscure in their story elements, so much so that you cant understand if they're really is a point or purpose beyond the cool gameplay and visual style.

So the game..

I'm still in the process of working out the immediate details, name, genre, high concept, etc...

I have a rough idea of everything right now, But Id rather show it than tell it at the moment. So stay tuned.

I'll be writing about the project from now until its done. I still might chime in with a normal topic from time to time, but don't count on it.

I'll be doing this under the Kill Joy Interactive label, which is a label of my own creation, funded out of my own pocket. So that means the projects budget somewhere around the 3 cent that I have on my desk here.

The Free World

2010-08-18T02:21:00.001-04:00

Freedom is appealing.
As players its a major draw for us.
And there are many games that offer us this freedom, in the form of the “Open World “and while a fair amount of them are good, they have something in common with the open world games that are bad.

They still suck....

Yeah. Even the good ones suck.

What makes one good and another bad is really all in in the initial entertainment value, and how long and how well they can keep you there. The good ones, can keep you there for several days.
While the bad ones will only last several minutes.

But weather its a good game or bad one, the initial entertainment value WILL eventually wear off.
And that's when you will clearly see just how much the game really sucks.

A common theme of the best open world games is to keep you interested with the story-mode, using it to distract you from the obvious suck its going to thoroughly deliver later on, Just after you've finished the story-mode. When that happens, It sucks just the same as all the other bad open world games that couldn't hold your attention. Because now, like them they have no more substance to offer you.

Whats happened after the credits roll, (or after you been bored to death), is a reveal of all the game really is, and what you can really do in its game world.

And in most cases, the answer to both is “Not much.” which is a direct contradiction to the “Do Anything” theme in the advertisements that usually come with the marketing campaigns of these games.

Its the harsh realization that without missions, or quests, or storyline...
You really have no purpose....and with no purpose you have absolutely nothing to do.
No conflict, No goal, No threats, No consequences.....No Game.
And without that, the game has just become boring.

This is the fate of all open world games, and it stems from a lack of actual game designing on the developers part.

In most games that don't have an open world platform, the experience you're having has been designed to play out a certain way. Even though you have control over the avatar, the designers have laid out plans to have you act and react exactly as they want you to. Its what some of us call “the Authored Experience.”

In an authored experience we want you to make all the actions and decisions that you thought you were making on your own, and if you fail we are even going to kill you in a very specific pre-planned way, so that we can influence you to make the “choice” we want you to make next time. Its a lot of carefully planned micromanagement disguised so that you don't realize that its happening. So that you don't realize that while you're playing the game, the game is also playing you.

However, in an open world game, that kind of detailed planning does not exist.
The designers literally leave just about everything to chance. and while leaving it chance gives you all of the freedom to make any of the choices you want...The overall quality of the experience is left to chance as well. And on its own, chance isn't very good at crafting an experience that's both interesting AND enjoyable

Which explains why the best open world games, tend to be mission based, like RDR or Saints Row, and lock you into exclusive mission sessions. Because inside of those sessions...actual game design has taken place, and we've given chance and proper nudge in the right direction. Its hardly to the level of a true authored experience, but its just enough to give you a purpose and duty, for at least few minutes or until the session ends.

Its really just enough to say “Hey Player! Shoot At This Thing!!.” or something just as basic.
“Go Over There!” “Kill this guy” “Protect this guy” etc... take your pick.
That's about the the extent of the “authoring” going on, but its better than the alternative...

Open world games that don't have missions, and don't lock you into a game session. So there is never any refuge from just how boring these games tend to be at their core.
They have their basic goals too, but the problem is that they aren't session exclusive and can be completed, or not completed at your leisure.
Which completely eliminates any sense of urgency, (no matter how much that NPC seemed distressed about it.) and without the urgency, you begin to realize...you don't HAVE to do anything.
And the only reason you can “do anything you want” in the first place, is because their was never really anything to do to begin with..

Oh The Horror!

2010-08-07T19:48:00.000-04:00

Any good horror production, should be more than blood and gore and be able to play on the mind of the viewer by doing things like altering perception, provoking emotions, and exploring and exploiting basic fears.
In other words, their should be a big psychological element to it.

I think most people will agree with that.

But why is it that most of the horror offerings in gaming aren't very strong?
Well here's what I think the problem is...

The horror genre demands that you put the viewer/reader in a state of helplessness or weakness. (usually by proxy through the character he is meant to connect with in the scene)

However its long been the practice in game design to insure that the player feels powerful and able at all times.

Here we have a direct conflict.
Developers who don't see the conflict usually follow the usual game design practices which pretty much negate most of what a Horror is supposed to be.

What is their to really be afraid of, if you're holding a a fully loaded rocket launcher?
What is there to wonder about, if you've been told how everything is going to play out?

Guns may be the most empowering kind of weapon in existence. And more often than not, we give the player that power many times over.

Keener developers who realize this, tend to try and get around it by doing things like limiting the ammunition available to the player. That actually makes a lot of sense, and it even works, on paper. However, in practice, it usually just becomes a balancing game for the player. It becomes less about fear and overcoming obstacles, and more about keeping track of your ammo count while scavenging around for more of it.

It pretty much becomes Pac-man.
Avoid the ghosts/zombies in the maze/level, and collect all the pellets/bullets, until you become powerful enough to turn the tables around and go ape-shit on any bad guy unlucky enough to be in your path.
Pac-man is a good game. But its just not scary.

I think the only way to do a horror game properly, would be to respect what Horror is, yield parts of the game design to it, and build other parts of the the game design around it.

First I think its important to examine the audience.
We know that because they picked up a horror a game, they WANT to be scared.
Which means they probably wont mind all that much if we toss out that old game design rule of empowering the player at all times. Besides, its the main thing that's causing the problems anyway.
They wont mind feeling helpless or weak at all. If done properly, they will actually enjoy it.

Next, lets think about this thing with the guns.
In most situations guns are primarily an offensive weapon, there are a few moments when they can be defensive. But most times they are purely for attacking.

Like the first suggestion we “could” also toss the gun out completely.
But I think there is a missed opportunity if we do that.

So what if we included the gun and made it part of the horror equation?
We change the players perception on what exactly a gun is in our game, and inside of that we'll also exploit a basic fear.

We will start the player off with a gun in hand. Well also give him a full clip or two of ammunition.
Now you're probably thinking that I'm doing exactly what I said was wrong.

But here's the catch....

Shooting the bad guys doesn't work at all...
its useless against them. It does nothing.

This isn't something we'll come right out and explain to the player.
That's what all that ammunition we gave him is for.

Coming fresh into the game, the player will see that he has a fully loaded gun, and bring along a preconceived idea of what it is, what its for, and how it works.
Of course he'll be wrong, but we'll let him figure that out for himself.

By the time the player has fired his last offensive bullet, his perception of the weapon will have changed drastically. We will let him keep the gun for two reasons.
The first reason is psychological. You have in your possession, what under normal circumstances would be a powerful weapon, is now an ineffective one. This drives home the feeling of weakness and also reinforces in the players mind, that “these aren't normal circumstances.”
The second reason we have the player keep the gun, is to change his perception of it all over again.
Later on in the game, we will give the player a few more bullets. We're not going to suddenly make shooting enemies work now, but we are going to define a new use for the gun. Instead of the player looking at the gun as a weapon, we will make him see the gun as a tool. A tool that will allow him to hit objects from a distance...provided his aim is good enough.

Beyond the gun...
there are several other things we can do to improve the Horror genre in gaming.

There are things we can borrow from other genres. Like stealth.
The tension involved in sneaking around a populated environment trying not to raise the suspicion of characters that want to harm you is always nice and thick. We could use something similar to that in our horror game as it will provoke emotion while its being done, as well as setup a proper scare if the player fails. If the player is successful, we can also take advantage of his feeling of relief, and get him with a good scare there.
Good game design usually rewards players for successfully completing a section. A scare here might not seem like such a reward at first, but remember who our audience is. They WANT those scares.

Depending on what your goal is, whether it be to stop the big-evil from happening, return the evil to from whence it came, or just to survive and get out alive...
you'll probably want to add a bit of mystery to the game. Give the player something to wonder about, a kind of puzzle to ponder on that cant be solved by pulling levers, pushing switches.

They easiest way to do this is to drop clues in the environment.
logs, diaries, journals, etc...As cheesy as they are, they work. But there are still a few problems with them.
They break or distract from the game flow, the clues the give are rarely ever subtle, and they also beg a few silly immersion breaking questions....

”why is it that everyone who died felt the need to document everything? Sometimes even while they were dying.”

“why have the few living people I've met, never documented anything at all?”

“how come nobody here understands that a secret password is supposed to be a secret?”

I think a few logs can be useful, but only in places were they make sense.
In my opinion he best way to leave a player something to wonder about is to keep it visual and build it directly into the environment.

Having the player arrive at the scene of an event after it has happened is a great way to get the players mind cranking. Something as simple as a room in disarray with a blood trail leading out into the hallway has enough atmosphere of its own to tell a story without words. The more you look around the environment, the more clues you find, until you finally have enough clues to figure out just whats going on. Its almost like an episode of CSI. The player doesn't have to stop the game to read a lengthy chunk exposition, because he's standing right in the middle of it. More importantly, all of the story is quickly building itself up inside the players head.

That's what its all about at the end of the day. Messing with the players head...
Through gaming, getting inside a players head is easy because of the interactive nature of games.
But its all about what you do once you're in there. Perhaps that could be said of gaming in general.

The Character Of My Character is My Character?

2010-07-30T10:46:00.001-04:00

Character customization.

This is one of the biggest draws for me about a game

Give me an avatar and then give me the power to really make him my own.
Or better yet, give me a blank slate and set me free!

Lots of games offer customization, more so now than they used to, and I hope its something that continues to grow. But that customization usually stops at the face, about 5 or 6 generic hair styles, and a handful of clothing sets from the early the 90's when we were just coming off the silliness of the 80's.

But beyond visual appearance...
Is their anything we can do to add more “character” to our character?

Even if you have a game with a really nice and robust set of customization options, and you can make your character look like just about anybody you want...

Is their anything else that we can do to really make our characters Characters?

Well for starters, How about animation?

Animation is what pretty much gives any good looking character model life. Its visual in a different way than your standard customization options are, and its the one thing that will really make you believe a character is who he say he is.

The way a character moves speaks volumes about emotions, his state of mind, his/her personalty in general. But in games that offer visual customization and no animation options you're custom character is restricted to behaving in a way that might not be right for him.

Maybe its the way he walks, or the way holds a gun. Maybe its even in the way your character just stands? Whatever it is, something isn't quite right.

Whats happening is that instead of the animation giving your character life. Its instead giving you an obvious imitation of life, and without the ability to adjust the animation, you have no way of correcting it.

Ever see a friend mocking another friend? Part of the reason its so funny, is because its so wrong.
Its so “out of character” for the friend doing the mocking.

If you're interested in looking...
There is an NPC in Assassins Creed that looks pretty silly. His hands are out to his sides and he looks like he's constantly trying to keep his balance, or maybe like he's dropped a load in his pants and he's trying to walk without people noticing.
When I saw this I thought to myself... “that's the stupidest walk cycle ever.”
and then as I started to walk away from the scene I noticed I was walking that way.
The NPC has Altair's Walk cycle, but because he is not Altair...it just looks very strange.

With a few key animation focuses we can avoid issues like that happening to our custom characters.
(Saints Row 2 is a game that proves it)

First... animations specific to core gameplay we have to concede. If we start messing with those, theirs a good chance that the game will fall apart altogether. Unless the developers deem the animation safe to have alternatives for, we'll have to let them be.

But there are 2 major common animations we can target...

Idle animation.
Even when your character is just standing around doing nothing, there is a big opportunity here. Posture tells us a lot about a character. If he stands stall, slouches, or if he's hunched over.
These are the things that give us clues about the characters demeanor.

Walk/run cycle.
Is this character skipping gingerly, walking with purpose, just striding along?
This gives us the same clues that that posture does, but may be more important because its a deliberate motion on the characters part..

Theses are decisions developers make when they are developing game characters.
When developers offer the player a variety of character customization choices to decide how the character looks, they should make sure to also allow him to make the decision about about how the character moves. Without it, you're given the ability to create a visually stunning cast member for the game, and at the same time prohibited from giving that character any kind of substance, or worse, the wrong kind of substance.

Know Your Role, MMORPGs Dont Exist.

2010-07-23T16:28:00.001-04:00

No such thing as an MMORPG

Not really...

The MMO I don't doubt. that certainly exists.
Its the RPG part I take issue with.
Specifically the R

The R in the acronym is meant to stand for “Role.”

However, nobody playing these games is playing an actual Role.
Unless you take the Role to mean your duty as a party member, Healer, Tank, DPS and all that...

but If you define Role by the traditional sense of RPG.
A part you play based on your characters motives and values (and not your own),
Then Role Playing just really doesn't happen in these games.

Anybody whose played a the average console RPG and MMORPG knows the difference right off.
Its the strength of the narratives. Simply put, the story in an RPG is much stronger than the story in an MMORPG. In fact, some MMORPGs are content not having a story at all.

The RPG will general have a narrative more akin to a story book that forms and evolves as the game continues on. Its got all your story elements. beginning, end, mcguffin, climax, maybe even a plot twist.

The MMORPG on the other hand usually just has a huge exposition dump right at the very beginning, but its clearly not required, and then they may or may not have some kind of conclusion at the end.

RPGs are typically character/plot driven epic adventures. They do have stat maintenance, but the purpose of maintaining those stats, is more for story progression than it is character growth.

MMORPGS are typically all about stat maintenance, and strategy. The only thing driving them really being the exploration of the world. Hence level specific dungeons.

The difference should be clear.
In an RPG you play a “Role”
where in an MMORP you play a “Roll”

So is their anything we can do, to have a multiplayer experience and still keep a strong narrative?
Yes. But not without a few sacrifices.

First, lets revisit that acronym. MMORPG and throw away that first M.
its that “Massive” part that I suspect is the root of the problem.
So lets dump it and just focus on making an MORPG.

Its surprising to me just how few of those their actually are, and even more surprising that developers don't really take advantage of what they can do, because they'd rather design the game as if it was an MMORPG anyway.

But back to our MORPG...
how many players is multiplayer?
Well I'm fairly sure you could get 8 to work out very well, were something like 16 may as well get you right back into trouble. but lets keep this thing small and say that number is 4.

Now, lets think about how to install the really strong narrative.
Strong story telling is usually found in Single player games, that don't offer much in the way of character customization. Because it allows the story to develop around one character and play off of that characters features and personality.

You may not like it, but that's exactly what we're going to do here.
The trick is this...

Each of the 4 players is going to have a narrative of his own that is exclusive to him and him alone.
Their player characters will have their own motives and values and goals, and as players they are going to do whatever they think is best to satisfy them.

If you still don't understand,
here is whats happening.....

Player 1: James
James mission in the game is to take revenge on the evil goblin king who murdered his wife and kidnapped his child.

Player 2: Mike
Mikes goal in the game is to recover a magic ring that the goblin kind stole from him.

Player 3: Chris
Chris is a spy for the goblin king, his goal is to collect information about the goblin kings enemies and lead them into traps.

Player 4: Gwen
Gwen is a money loving cut throat thief who has no real goal accept to make lots of money....but she has heard that the goblin king might have a really valuable ring...and you know what? As a child, she was kidnapped.

Viola!
And just like a game of Clue (or Cluedo) their are obviously certain things about yourself you'll want to keep private until the time is right.

Each players narrative is independent of the others, and so posses the potential to be very strong. But the coolest part is that their stories will overlap and intersect with one another, forcing everyone to play off of everyone else.

Ahem... Role Play.

Though they may have to cooperate with the other players, they are essentially in this thing for themselves.

The only real drawback I can see is that the players will need some discipline.

They'll need to be able to get together and regularly play together. as the game might be less playable if someone doesn't show up. Tabletop style.

They'll need to be able to restrain themselves from divulging important information which would ruin the game for everyone. Its the kinda game you'll probably only want to play with your friends. Again, tabletop style.

Now like a single player game theirs the issue of replay value. Single player games with strong narratives tend not to have very much of it, and this game isn't all that different in that respect, even though it has 3 more stories than your regular single player games do.

When the game is over, its over for everyone.
But you wanted a good story....
and a common characteristic of any good story is that it ends.

Digital Distibution Only

2010-07-20T05:19:00.001-04:00

I love the idea of a digital distribution exclusive gaming society.
It would be so cool and progressive.....and....and..you know what?

Maybe I don't like the idea as much as I thought.
Theirs something about it I just cant get around.

You've got things like OnLive, Which to my understanding is pretty much a console with no game disc tray, because you use the service to (download?) play all the games.

I'd like to say I'm completely fine with the idea of that.
In fact I was that guy who used to say “I've had an xbox360 for 2 months and I don't even own a retail game yet, and XBL makes me not even care!”

But I cant say I'd drop a dime of my money on OnLive yet as a consumer. Something about is just off putting. And as a developer, I wouldn't develop for if it was my decision alone.
In fact as a developer it wasn't my choice alone, when OnLive was first unveiled and made all kinda headlines, the company I was working for initially agreed to target it it as a platform.
However, my stance was... “I'm not sure this is a lasting platform, (or one even rooted in reality at the time) but if being a leader on it will get us a little bit of recognition....I guess we'll support it.”

OnLive had this magical effect on me. It seemed like anytime the leaders of the project spoke on it, I tended to go... “They don't know what the hell they're talking about.” Then I tended to think... “Its probably me, they wouldn't be this enthusiastic about something that wouldn't work, would they?” eventually I'd go with the first reaction, but the process would start all over again anytime Onlive was discussed.

I still don't know what to think about it, but it seems the service/platform is moving ahead.
Still...despite weather it can work or not, Its like I can't bring myself to trust it.

So then theirs the PSPGO...
I think I was actually disgusted when I found it out was download only platform.
Not that I had made the investment that most PSP gamers made and actually had a large library of games that this thing was going to nullify. I was more put off that their was nothing in it for me to trust.

I still haven't even bought a game on my cell phone yet.
I've purchased a few apps. But not a single game.
See the apps usually increase the worth of the phone, where a game by comparison is more of a separate thing all together...not to mention silly casual game.

I have actually purchased a few games via XBL, but every time I do make a purchase, I first go through this long contemplation stage that sometimes lasts for 3 days or more, and then when I finally do decide to buy a game, my thumb hangs over the purchase button for a while.
It just always feels like I'm taking a risk. Back-flipping off a balcony blindfolded, while someone I've never met and have never even seen, promises me that their will be a soft cushion of awesome there to break my fall.

Man... That's almost the 70 virgins deal.
Of course the greatest thing about XBL is that it has demos, so you get to at least make-out with 5 of the girls first....yeah.

Anyway, trust is the issue. For as long as I can remember, that trust came in the forms of something tangible that you could actually feel or look at. The undeniable proof that had to follow the laws of physics because it existed in the same reality that I existed in.

I come from an age of collectors.
We collected comics, games, cards, limited edition soda cans, etc...
we had to hunt them down, figure out how to acquire them, and then make them ours.

The item itself then became the trophy that could be hoisted over your head and leave your peers in awe over your finding. It became something that had a value beyond the retail price.

Theirs no hunt with digital distribution.
And no trophy at the end either.
Its almost like theirs nothing there at all.

So what do I trust? A service?
A service in an reality not my own, run by people who wanna make a buck off me?

Seriously, I want a digital distribution exclusive gaming society. That thing that proves that we have evolved into something great. I want this...but you may have to drag me into it kicking and screaming.

Think Smaller

2010-07-15T14:58:00.005-04:00

It seems like several key players in the industry are saying the same thing lately.
The the hyper expensive triple A title project model needs to go, or at least need not be focused as much as it has in the past, and that the industry as a whole needs to focus on smaller projects.

I think most peoples initial response is “Fuck that! and Farmvile too!”
I know mine was.
But theyre right...

Currently the industry just doesn't have a middle ground.
You're either developing a triple A title or you're casual one, with no in between.

I remember saying that myself a few years back in the rise of the casual gamer and the apparent industry focus to attract and focus on them.

When the casual gamer was 'created'...
Yes created, essentially because Microsoft and Nintendo wanted to pimp the online offering, using retro games as their 'bottom bitch.' (and who can blame them)
anyway...
When the casual model and focus came along, It really polarized the industry in terms of development, with accessibility in tow.

As a gamer, my complaint at the time was that I didn't consider myself a hardcore gamer, according to the new definition, (a gamestop grinder) and I was hardly a casual gamer...so I didn't have many options, and their were millions of other gamers just like me who were being grossly overlooked.

I even remember bringing that to the bosses attention and saying that “we should try and develop for those guys.” …. I never got the chance.

So here we are, and the industry is apparently nearly in trouble over it now, and nobody seems to know what to do, or how to fix it.

I think the fix is easy fix actually....
Get that middle ground gamer back, and do it by doing what the fuck we said we were gonna do YEARS AGO.

$60+ for a game has always been pretty rough, and risky as hell for the consumer.
Any title worth putting at that price point has been pretty risky for the developer, because of development costs. Not to mention 2nd hand stores make it even harder to see returns.

On the other hand, lots of casual games are really cheap. Not risky for the consumer or the developer.
But its such a 1 and done deal, and the games themselves are likely not even attractive to the mid level gamer, and If you're like me, you just passionately hate most of them.

What do we do? Isn't it obvious?

Go episodic.

I cant think of a single game in recent history that actually does this thing right, and I cant think of any legitimate reasons why.

But lets look at a few offerings that have come close, and then look at where they fail.

Fable II.
The “episodes” offered no beginnings or ends. They weren't really even episodes.
It was just divided chunks of a Triple A title...and you can tell.

But I think they did pricing and delivery perfectly. Its just unfortunate the the episodic content wasn't very episodic at all.

Now lets look at Half-Life2
This is very disappointing because everything about their model for this is SO RIGHT.
The games were, the right length, the right price, had solid scenarios making them actually episodic...

But their was just a serious failure to execute, and the time between episodes was pretty ridiculous.

I love valve, but its pretty obvious that their either wasn't very much planning ahead, or that their was an inability to stick to that plan if it did exist.
We're still waiting for episode 3, and then if it ever comes out....we'll then be waiting on episode 4.
However, by now its taken so damn long, that any release will feel dated. They almost just need to make a whole new game altogether.
Was anyone ever even working on episode 3?

Industry...lets do this right.

The initial episode I imagine would take some time to develop.
But once its done....Once the functionality is there... It should be smooth sailing for the rest of the series run. Because by then its should less development and more design.

Remember the old games like...
wolf3d
commander keen

Those games had it right.
They even called it right. Using the term “episodes”

Their was nothing fundamentally differently about the game play in each episode.
Just the scenarios, which included clear beginnings and ends, and you could buy only the episodes you wanted.

The only failings with those games was that they didn't have the distribution method at the time.
Because of that. Similar games stopped being episodic. I think the last one was Duke3d, but you got all the episodes at once, in a single bundle...so it was more a 'parody' of being episodic. Maybe the one parody about the game that was unintentional.

One Huge Cutscene.

2010-07-05T08:55:00.006-04:00

Recently I was asked to undertake the development phase of a story project that might see some life as a limited video series. Out of respect for the projects creator, I wont speak on the project in detail, but I will say that I think its a very unique and interesting one.

It was surprising to me how quickly I defaulted to game design methodology for the development of the project, and even more surprising to see how much of it actually worked out and what didn't.

In game design everything is centered around first understanding your audience, and 2nd ,constantly engaging and holding the audiences attention. I think something like that might be generally harder to achieve with this kind of project considering the lack of interactivity.

With a lack of interactivity comes an inability to easily connect the viewer to the main character.
In a video game, the player is usually given an avatar which on some level is a representation of himself. Even if its a character that comes with their own name, background and goals, etc...
even if the avatar is as least like you as possible...
In the moments that you take control of this character, For a while, His actions become your actions, and vice-vera, your actions become his.

In this project I wont have that luxury, and so I must research and experiment with various methods to get that connection that moment of perfect symmetry between the viewer and the onscreen character.

Its a challenge I look forward to meeting.