Manifest Development Blog

Hello, you may have noticed that my posts are...sparse. I have a couple of reasons for that: 1. Addiction to TF2 and L4D2. And 2. I'm developing a mod for Warcraft III: The Frozen Throne. I have used the Warcraft III World Editor for many years now, but none of my games have ever truly progressed past prototypes. I figured it was about time to change that and actually complete a game. Why? Because I want to be a game designer, professionally. And there's no better way to get noticed in this industry, or even to be considered legitimate, then to make a game of your own. For the record, I also intend to be a professional games journalist as well, but I need to complete this game to act as a portfolio and to prove to myself that yes, I can actually finish what I begin.

Fortunately, the game's awesome. It's called Manifest, and it's a competitive, two-player, turn-based strategy game. I'm developing it alone and spending exorbitant amounts of time doing so. In a few weeks, I intend to have an open beta, after-which I'll be releasing the game for free for all to enjoy. I love Warcraft III mods; I truly do. I feel that the completion of this mod is my way bringing closure to a pivotal aspect of my life. Warcraft III made up much of my teenage years, and the editor itself allowed me to realize that I wanted to be a game designer in the first place. I'm having an excellent time making Manifest, and the game has finally progressed to a point where I can begin showing it to people. With that in mind, I have begun another (gasp!) blog chronicling the development of Manifest on Edge. "Another blog!" you say, "but you have a perfectly good blog right here." You're points are legitimate, but I wanted to keep this dev blog separate, as I see Invisible Studio as focusing on my opinions on game design and game commentary. Also, I wanted my development blog to have the opportunity to be viewed by lots of people, something I didn't see as feasible with this blog. I'll continue to update this blog with all issues of design and commentary, but I'll also be updating the Manifest blog each day on features of the game and the development process. Check out the Manifest blog here. And thanks for your continued support.

Designing With Goosebumps and Without Censors

In my non-fiction class, we're learning about the process of writing. Writing is a a process of creativity, of the imagination, and of the spirit. Writing is this junction point of creativity and imagination, it is an expression, convalescence of emotions and thoughts as words. Our best writing comes naturally and fluidly, but only if we allow it. We have been discussing how a careful first draft is a failed first draft, courtesy of Patricia Hampl. As humans, we have this thing in our mind called a censor. This censor filters our thoughts before they emerge into the open world. The censor is a fact-checker, a security gate checking to see that our thoughts are somehow legitimate before we let them leave our mind. In writing, the censor is more of a hindrance than a benefit. Because our censor questions the validity of our intuition and our imaginative subconscious. Anything our censor finds false, lacking, or incomplete, it throws into the trash for immediate incineration. But this censor halts our imaginative flow and stops our real genius from ever getting on the page. So right now we're practicing over-coming our censor, not letting it block our flow and just writing whatever comes out. There is always room for revision later.

I've come upon the same conclusion for game design. I think the present process of game design is moreso a science than an art. We have a heavy, thick-walled censor for designing games. Or at least I do, and am practicing to overcome it as well. Our game design censor has a face, many actually: reviews, gamers, publishers, friends, design theory, mechanical knowledge, and the gamer we know ourselves to be. So when we design games, every idea we come up with has to pass through this series of security gates, diminishing its chances of ever seeing the light of day. But these ideas our coming from a place of art, a place of genius and creativity and where pigs can fly. This place inside of us is our passion. It can feel the truth of interactivity and joy and learning. But when we allow our censors to fact-check each fairy or brilliant gem that flows by, we lose the imagination and creativity and passion, the essence, of our artistic genius.

Cliff Bleszinski ignores his censor. He designs with goosebumps on his arms. You know what its like. When an epiphany strikes and you know you can feel it, you can feel so strongly that twinge of genius, that spark of awesomeness from within. And the next moments are amazing. As you explore at light speed this universe of ideas. Your smiling and your heart's beating fast because this idea has so much gravity. But almost immediately your censor stops the imagination and asks, "will that actually be fun," and, "how do you control it," and, "will anyone actually want to play this." These questions can be asked later, once you've allowed the ideas to flow and the mystery has been explored. Otherwise the censor will stop you in your tracks and discourage you from exploring what could be something truly great.

CliffyB, I think, designs without his censor. He feels game design. Just watch this Developer Diary about Sound in Gears of War 2:


You see what I mean. He feels. And I think this is what so many games are lacking these days. Feeling. Its so important that games have passion, that they breathe, that they have spirit. And I think this comes from the fact that Cliffy has a connection with his game. Gears 2 is uniquely his own and is infused with his passion and energy.

Next time you get that twinge of enlightenment, ignore your censor for awhile and see where your genius takes you. Don't worry about gamers' expectations, or the AAA benchmark, or what everybody else is doing. Just listen to your spirit talk and let it show you what your passion can achieve when set free.

Push it Further

My brother York is a potter. He throws, glazes, and fires pottery then sells them at craft shows. At craft shows, he gives each piece a price tag and sets each up for sale. Yesterday, I asked him, "do you ever negotiate price, lower a pot's price point if a person is too wary of spending what's on the tag?" He answered, "never." He explained that this is a standard for all potters and crafters. When he talks with other potters, all of them say that their work is too fine, too unique, too precious to compromise price. If anything, York says, we would push our prices higher, charge more. You can't compromise art.

And this is like game design. Our work is an art and science. We must be confident, sure in our design. We must have confidence in the quality of our work. Don't compromise your art. Don't compromise your vision. Don't dilute your design to meet player standards. Don't adhere to genre specifications if it doesn't fit your game. If anything, push your design further. Say, "no. My design will not be watered-down. I know what my game is. I know what it can be."

Your game may be different. It may be quirky. It may be odd. But also, it may be innovative. Your game might push the boundaries of what a game can achieve. Your game might not fit the limitations of a genre. Your game might not feature what players consider essential to a genre. Game design sure as heck doesn't evolve through standardization. Push it further. Don't compromise your art for other people's opinions. Do listen to what they have to say. Listen to their thoughts and ideas. But be sure to evaluate how their ideas will affect your game. Analyze the positives and negatives of any change in your game before implementation. Just be sure to not compromise your design for what people consider necessary. Be confident that your design can do better than the standard.

Image Source

Wooden Barrel Game Design

Gamasutra recently interviewed Jenova Chen, creative director of Thatamecompany, the developer behind flOw and the upcoming flOwer for PlayStation Network.

Chen has a lot of interesting things to say; he has a unique conception of and approach to game design. At the end of the interview, Chen dicusses the quality of game design and development.

Earlier I was commenting on a lot of games from big publishers, how they feel like it's made on a pipeline. Where the head, in the beginning, is awesome, because the people who work on it are great, but then the middle part is really lame because they slacked off, or the tail is really bad because they cut it.

So we used to use a metaphor: a barrel which holds water, a wooden barrel has all these pieces, and you use a frame to put them together. Each piece is for a different aspect of the game -- one is for the graphics, one is for the sound, one is for design -- and if any one of those is short, the water that you can hold is only up to the shortest part. And the water is the satisfaction of the player.

If you have terrible graphics, and everything else is great, the player will probably just keep saying, "Oh, the graphics suck!" But, meanwhile, if you have really wonderful graphics -- like real graphics -- but the gameplay sucks, they will still think the game is mediocre, because the gameplay sets the cap.

So, as a small team, there is no way that we can create a cap, a taller piece than a commercial game, but our goal is to keep every piece at the same height; so it could be even higher than some of the commercial games.

This analogy is not only beautiful, but also apt. His assessment is also absolutely spot on. Gamers and the media, both often cynical, will attack the lowest common denominator of the game. The features of a game should match up. The graphics, gameplay, sound, and all of the other aspects of a game should be given equal attention and focus. Not only that, but the features of a game should work together, should cooperate with one another. Otherwise there will be holes; some aspect of the game will be lacking. We want our games to be whole.

Image from My Garden

Better is this Way

Jon Blow, creator of Braid, gave a lecture in January at the Game Focus Germany conference. The lecture is titled Programming is Easy; Production is Harder; Design is Hardest.
Download the lecture. I highly recommend you listen to the whole thing along with the slides.

Jon Blow, From around 40:00 mark:

I need to justify this huge time expense, that I'm spending on games in terms of my life. Is this really what I want to be doing? What makes it worth making games? As I've gotten older I've gotten much pickier about whats a good game, and what's a game worth me doing. And so I start asking myself certain questions. And these questions are the basis of design. Design is about, you know, from nothing, you have all the possibility in the world. And, you ask yourself, what game should I make? From nothing. And its like well, it could be anything. So you have to narrow it down somehow. For me, those questions are like how is this design going to effect the world versus other things that I could do. Whats it for? Right? A game does something. A design does something, right? Of these things that can do things, what is worth creating and spending all this time on and what is not? Right? What is dark energy pumping out into the world versus something valuable for people and putting it out in the world. Whats the best use of my players' time? How am I improving my players' quality of life through this game, or am I improving their quality of life? Am I doing anything? What am I doing in the first place? [. . .] When your viewing game development, especially independent development, from a purpose mindset, what is my purpose for being an independent developer? Design becomes very hard, it becomes the hardest thing. Because its the foundation now. Its the entire reason for slogging through that bug list.

Developing Game Design: Counterpoint

GameSpot recently interviewed Will Wright, head of Maxis. The video interview is below.



At one point, just before the 5:00 marker, GameSpot asks Wright, "What do you wish you could change about the game industry?" Wright answers:

I think the game industry is starting to take the path of the television industry where its getting very risk adverse. Part of that is that development budgets are getting so incredibly expensive that it feels so risky to take a chance on something nobody has ever seen before. People today instead chase genres. You know whatever the best selling game was last year, everybody says we want World of Warcraft, or whatever it was, this year people want a better version of that.


If you actually go back historically and look at what the big games were every year, they were usually big games because they were well done, well-tuned and polished, etc. and they also had a certain amount of, kind of, novelty, relative to things that were preceeding them. So, chasing the last big thing, in some sense is, you know, while it might lower your downside, you're never going to capture your upside that made them a big hit in the first place.


So, I think that's probably the biggest danger right now, is that, because of the budgets, people tend towards that risk adverse, and it tends to kind of squash innovation. But occasionaly, I think we're starting to see now, the type of people that are playing games, the type of games that we're playing, we're starting to see things like Guitar Hero, Rock Band, the Wii, games that are really different than what preceeded them, and they're, for the most part, enjoying great success, which is, you know, in some sense feels like the second or third renaissance of gaming because of that.

You can see how this directly relates to yesterday's post. And I think I agree with Wright, too. Looking at games as a business, incremental development makes sense. Publishers want to make money on something thats a proven success. Looking at games as an artform, however, perhaps such reliance makes things stale. Hence, genres (again). But I think there is a balance. We can have the best of both worlds. We can innovate from the successful. There is always learning to be done. So when good game design comes around, like Portal, for example, we can observe the design. What makes the design good? Why do we like it? Then we need to stop. We need to sit out for a minute, reflect, reconsider, look at things from a new angle. Then we can use our various perspectives and knowledge and apply them to something new. The danger is relying too heavily on proven games, like a crutch. But if all we do is rely on this crutch then we'll never learn to walk without it. We need to be progressive to realize that, though this crutch is what taught us how to walk in one way, we will learn from it, and develop an entirely new and better way to walk.

Developing Game Design

The other day, I recieved a message from my friend with a link to a flash game. The message's subject line read, "An interesting Portal rip-off." The game in question was SHIFT, designed by Antony Levell for Armor Games. Incedentally, I had already played Shift the previous night, but what intrigued me was my friend's chosen tagline: "Portal Rip-off."

Please make sure you play through Shift before reading on.

Unquestionably, Shift does share similar design to Portal, the likeness especially obvious given certain in-game refrences. But is it a rip-off? I would argue not. In fact, Shift is an extremely high quality game supported by excellent design. Shift is cool, fun, challenging, thought-provoking, all tradmarks of good design. We can, however, immediately percieve the Portal influence. Where Portal is designed around a single principle of gameplay, so too is Shift. Portal has players using a gun to solve puzzles. Shift has players flipping a level to solve puzzles. The problem is, "rip-off" comes with too many connotations. Shift is more so inspired by Portal, and that is a good thing.

Game design is like anything else in this world: its a process. The art of painting isn't revolutionized every day, nor is cinematography, nor is game design; all of these evolve as art forms incrementally. Artists learn from one another, we look at what has been done and see how it was done and what was good and what was not so good, and we iterate. Hence, genres. Game design, like other mediums, is influenced by its own creations. The fact is, Portal has been hugely influential to game design. The game exemplies the core of what makes games fun: learning through experience, excellent balance of difficulty, simplicity. In a way, our industry needed Portal. In a time of insular design, Portal proved to be an elegant example of the beauty of video games. And therefore, a cornerstone of modern game design.

Which brings us back to Shift. Shift was designed using the same philosophy behind Portal. The developers of Shift clearly appreciated Portal's design, and more importantly, learned from it. This is what we're doing as game designers, and as an industry, learning. There's nothing wrong with learning, its beautiful. Does every game need to be a revolution, an utter innovation? No; thats not the way things work. We build. We learn from experience. We take the blueprints of successful game design and resketch them, improve them. We are developing the artform. Our goal is to contribute to that development, to push ourselves to push forward the medium.

Another example very similar in vein is Fez, the winner for Excellence in Visual Design at the Independent Games Festival at the 2008 the Game Developer's Conference. Fez is being developed by Kokoromi for Xbox Live Arcade using the XNA development tools. Fez is an original title, but its gameplay is not unique.


Look familiar? It should. The primary gameplay mechanic is an iteration of Nintendo's Super Paper Mario and Zoe Mode's Crush. All three of these game function off a similar principle, that of 2d/3d perspective switching. In Super Paper Mario, players can flip the world to look up and down a three-dimensional hallway angle of a level. In Crush, players can flatten the world into two-dimensions either as a side-scroller or top-down. The world of Fez can be fully rotated three-dimensionally to reveal new platforming pathways.

Zoe Mode's Crush, for PSP.

Fez is awesome. Watching the gameplay trailer, I was consistently amazed at how cool and fun it looked. The style is similar to games by Nifflas' (a good thing, to be sure), but suddenly, a whole dimension is revealed, and the game becomes something else entirely. Fez's similarity to Super Paper Mario and Crush is undeniable, but this is not a bad thing. Fez is designed off a relatively new gameplay mechanic, but not staticly. Kokoromi is using this perspective switch mechanism, but developing it further, advancing it. What we are in danger of is designing games that are the same as previous titles. Designing games built on solid, effective gameplay principles, and expanding upon them, improving them, innovating, is what we want to do. Development is a process, a progression. In fact, Dictionary.com defines development as the "act of improving by expanding or enlarging or refining." Rome wasn't built in a day. Innovation doesn't happen overnight. Learn from other games. Its not stealing; its saying "Thank you for being so awesome. Let me try and do even better."

Images from Gamespy
Trailer from Gametrailers

By Force or Design?

I got a call from my brother the other day. He said he'd recently spent alot of time playing the Burnout Paradise demo. He said, "Finn, did you know you can't restart races." I replied that I was aware of the fact. For those who don't know, Burnout Paradise is a free-roaming driving game by Criterion. Players can drive anywhere in paradise city and do as they please. The racing structure is found at intersections, where players can initiate various racing events. Speaking on the phone with my brother, he explained that once you begin a race, you can only restart it by returning to the starting-line intersection. It should also be pointed out that players are not locked into any event that they begin. If players see something that interests them while racing, they are free to just drive away from the event and consequently drop-out, albeit willingly.

My brother took issue with this, what he called, "restriction." He asked me, "Is it ok for a game to force you to do something? Is it right to force players to play a certain way." He had a valid point. Burnout Paradise has a very specific and intentional design. Every aspect (or not) of the game is intended to support the overall open-world design. Criterion really wants players to play Burnout Paradise in a certain way. But I mean this is a good way; I think the notion is admirable, in fact. You see, Burnout Paradise is not a traditional racing game, its a sandbox game. What Criterion is really doing is asking players to let go of their expectations. You are not playing Need for Speed, you're not playing Project Gotham, you're not even playing Burnout, at least not in its earlier incarnations. Burnout Paradise is a beast all to its own. Criterion is asking players to accept a new type of game before even picking up the controller. They're asking you to dash your expectations for what a racing game is and play Burnout Paradise for what itself offers.Now, this sandbox type game has actually been done before, in a few ways. Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Midnight Club, and what I think most closely resembles Pardise, Rush 2. But Burnout Paradise arrives with a new generation of consoles and gamers, and more importantly, it really is different from all of the above.

The non-restart system is indicative of the entire game's design. Burnout Paradise has non-linear gameplay. The races themselves are mostly non-linear and the open-world is certainly non-linear. However, by not allowing players to restart a race, Criterion is literally forcing players to play a certain way. Now here is the real quesion: Is it ok to force players to do something just because you want them to play a certain way? Is it ok to restrict their playstyle?
I would argue, yes. This is what we do as game designers. We request players to assume specific playstyles all the time. You want to restart the race? Too fricken' bad. Adapt. Criterion is asking alot of players, and at the same time, they're really not asking much. Burnout Paradise wants you to have an open-mind. If you approach the game with certain expectations, like being able to restart, you will inevitably dislike the game. This is what my brother told me, "It is impossible to enjoy Burnout Paradise immediately, you have to play for at least three hours to finally realize the game's fun."

Ah! There it is! Criterion is saying "We want you to have fun. Trust us. Just give us a couple of hours and you will learn how to have fun within our world." So, is it right to force players to play a certain way? Heck yes. You need to have confidence in the fun in your game. You also need to ease them into your new playstyle, but thats a different matter altogether. Burnout Paradise is all about having fun in the moment. Fun is all around you, just explore a bit and you will find it. You won't be so disappointed about losing a race and not being able to restart because their is more fun to be had right in front of your eyes. In a way the game is even catering to our ADD generation.A final question: Would Burnout Paradise be more fun if it allowed you to restart races? Would the option detract from overall design? I think it would. I can gurantee that if players had the option to restart a race, 99% of the time they would. And then what? And then the game wouldn't be what it is. It would lose its open-world effect, and devolve into something more like a hub-world for a bunch of races. And thats no fun.

Burnout Paradise is innovative. In writing this rather rantesque article, I've come up with a definition of innovative game design. Innovative is asking players to let go of their expectations for what a game is. Innovative is breaking lose from the status-quo to becoming something different, something more than just convention. Innovative is saying, "We're not going to let things like genres decide what our game is going to be. We're not going to give in to give in to a predetermined definition of fun. We know what fun is. We're going to make that fun and give the players something they don't even know they want yet. That is innovative."

Jungle Beat Game Design

I've been playing alot of Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat as of late. Jungle Beat is a title for the Gamecube developed by Nintendo EAD, the very same studio behind Super Mario Galaxy, as a matter of fact. Jungle Beat is an amazing game. Besides the fact that its just plain fun, the design behind the whole thing is nothing short of genius. Playing as Donkey Kong, players employ a bongo peripheral to roam through a series of side-scrolling levels. The game is divided into seventeen kingdoms, each represented by a different fruit. Each kingdom is divied into three levels that must be played in consecutive order to complete the kingdom as a whole. The first two levels of each kingdom are side-scrolling, platforming stages, where DK must reach the fruit at the finish of each stage to move forward. The final level of each kindgom is a boss fight.

This is an outdated screen. The bar along the top is actually in the bottom-right corner, in a much more aesthetic form.

The goal of the platforming stages is to earn "beats," which itself is achieved by collecting bananas. Bananas come in single form or in bundles; however, the quantity of beats players earn from bananas is determined via a combo system. And the combo system is entirely skill-based, and robust. For example, bananas net greater beats from being clapped than being touched. Also, players can string together combo points by chaining together aerial tricks; the bigger the combo chain, the greater number of beats will be awarded players per banana collected while the combo is in effect. After each stage is complete, players play a minigame to collect as many bananas as possible in a short time limit before the next stage begins.The final level of each kingdom is a boss fight. Here is where the game changes, and becomes so fascinating: no bananas and no beats can be earned from boss fights. Instead, the beat count from the previous two stages coalesce into a health bar for DK. The entire goal of the boss fight is to win without getting heart. Because each time DK is damaged during a boss fight he loses health, and therefore beats.When the boss is defeated and the kingdom complete the final beat count is tallyed. This final tally awards players a rank for that kingdom, given in the form of crests, of which there are either bronze, silver, gold, or platinum. Simply finishing the kingdom, one beat, awards players a bronze crest. 400 earns a silver crest, 800 a gold, and 1200 a platinum.

The crests serve to unlock new kingdoms. Kingdoms come in sets, four kingdoms to a set. Completing a set unlocks a new set. But crests unlock kingdoms within the sets. It may take 16 total crests, earned by completing multiple kingdoms, to unlock a higher kingdom.

The moral of the story is this is genius game design. The gameplay has a progression, which can be seen as follows.

1. Player Skill
   
2. Beats Earned
3. DK Health Bar
4. Boss Battle Skill
   
5. Final Beat Count/Player's Score
   
6. Crests Earned
   
7. Kingdom Unlocked/Award for Player Skill
   

Thus, we can see that the player's skill in the core game feeds into everything else. Players who use the game's combo system and fight bosses effectively are awarded with a high final beat count, which doubles as a representation of their gameplay skills. Players are awarded with crests for playing well, and subsequently awarded with new kingdoms to play in. And the cycle begins again. See? Genius.

And this is what makes Jungle Beat so awesome. It focuses on what video games do best: gameplay. It utilizes a system both relient upon and rewarding of player skill. Therefore, players feel compelled to play well, for reward and for the satisfaction of that ever-elusive high score count. You can always play better.

Which brings me back to the beginning. All of this would be moot if Jungle Beat didn't have a robust combo system in place. The whole reason this progression system works is because the gameplay is so deep. The combo system is highly functional. Beats are reflective of player skill, and "skill" only exists because the gameplay was specifically designed to be dynamic, to allow for variance in play and play style.

Oh! And for the record this creates amazing replay-value, which people seem to value so highly these days. For some reason.

p.s. Sorry about the image-quality. All Jungle Beat images online are of this terrible quality; its the best I could do.

p.s.s. For more information on specifics of Jungle Beat please see Jorik Mandemaker's FAQ. Or just buy the game.

p.ssssssss....Can you believe the L-Block won!

Echochrome: Principle-Based Design

Echochrome is about playing with perspective. The game is currently in development at SCEA Studios Japan for PSP and the PS3 Network. Echochrome isn't the first game to play with perspective, another recent title, Crush, featured a similar play style. But perspective as a play structure isn't really what we want to look at today anyway, instead we want to look at perspective as a function of game design. Echochrome features a simple but highly effective design schema: principle-based design. Many, and indeed, possibly all good video games use this very same design method. Alot times people want to make video games far more complicated than they need to be, which in the end just makes them convoluted piles of confusion.Principle-based game design, to eschew the non-descriptive title, can more easily be defined as a style of designing games around a set of guiding principles. The beauty of principle-based game design is its functionality in gameplay. Echochrome is a perfect example of principle-based game design because it really strips the term down to its most basic roots.

Watch this video:


Echochrome has one overarching principle: what you see is true. The gameplay is governed by five principles, all of which rely on the same method of control, which is perspective. The five principles are as follows:

• Subjective Translation
• Connect pathways to create new avenues.
  
• Subjective Landing
• The character will land on what appears to be below.
  
• Subjective Existence
• Cover over gaps to form a continuous pathway.
  
• Subjective Abscence
• Same as Subjective Existence. Cover up holes to make it as if they aren't there.
  
• Subjective Jump
• The character will land on what appears to be above.

The game is run by these laws, or principals. Once the players understands the laws, all that is required from them to solve the puzzles is critical thinking and the use of this knowledge. More broadly, designing a game with principles for gameplay allows designer's to build the game around those laws, kniwning that players understand the rules by which the game is governed. And really, this is how most games are played. You learn a game's mechanics, then you use them to overcome the game's challenges. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, like skill and chance, but truly, principle-based game design is an excellent foundation.

Here is another demonstration of Echochrome's principals taken from an earlier development state.

Play Motivation

IGN tipped me off to a survey the University of Amsterdam is conducting entitled "Motiviations for Playing Video Games." The survery takes about 15 minutes and is well worth your time. What is most interesting about the survey is how you're forced to question your own motivations for playing. This isn't a simple Q&A, its a search into your soul: Why do you play video games. The most fascinating question, to me, was this:

"While I am playing the video game, I think about how much I enjoy it."

Do you? Answers are guaranteed to be different for different people. Think about this for awhile and then get back to me. I want to know what you guys have to say. After you've come to some sort of conclusion, think about the same question from a designer's perspective. Do you want players to think about having fin while playing a video game? If so, then how do you go about designing a game to achieve this?

Take the Survey
Picture Source

Also, IGN has a great interview with Demiurge Software's director of development about Brothers in Arms: Double Time for Wii. He basically talks about the importance of desiging to a system. Valuable information indeed.

You Shirk it at Your Peril

Game Designer Ernest Adams writes a frequent column for Gamasutra titled "The Designer's Notebook." His latest entry is subtitled: "Why Design Documents Matter." Its a really interesting article explaining why game design documents are necessary to have a successful game development. My favorite part of the article comes on page 3, where Adams describes how "design documents turn generalities into particulars."

The process of writing a document turns a vague idea into an explicit plan. It’s one thing to say “Harpies will be flying creatures” in a meeting, but that’s nowhere near enough to build from. In fact, there’s not even any point in writing it down if that’s all you have to say. What the developers need are details: How high can they fly? How fast do they fly? Are they affected by the weather? Can harpies land? Can they land anywhere they want to? Can they also move on the ground, and if so, what sorts of terrain and how fast? Are they more, or less, vulnerable when in the air or on the ground? And so on and so on, and it all needs to be written down so that everyone on the team has all the information they need to build the product.

It would be nice if game design consisted of sitting around with your feet up and daydreaming about cool content and features, and I’ve met some designers who thought that was the whole job. It isn’t; they were slackers. The vast majority of design consists of figuring out the details.

Although you’ll always change those details later in testing and tuning, you have to start with something. In a real sense, the process of writing documents is the process of design, because it is then that you turn abstract concepts into concrete plans. Even if no one reads your document at all, an idea written down is a decision made, a conclusion reached.

A good example of above excerpt is Warcraft III, which actually has several types of Harpys in game, and to which most of the above questions apply. As a matter of fact, there are many, many types of creeps in Warcraft III, it would be nigh impossible to have designed all of them without a document at hand.

I have taken to writing design documents for my own game concepts. It really is quite fun. When I think about a game I'm creating, ideas pop in and out of focus and also change over time. Remembering all of those ideas is basically impossible, not to mention extremely stressful. At first I write down notes on a legal pad I carry around, pages of notes. I write down every idea that comes into my mind, and all of the variations and potential forms of those ideas. Then, when I feel comfortable enough with where I'm going I take to a word processor and type all of my notes to the hard drive. Then begins the process of refining and organizing and deciding. Its really cool to see how the game develops over time, even conceptually as all of my games do, because eventually you have whatever number of pages of ideas that you can print off and show to people and say, "Hey, this is a game I'm making, what do you think?"

I imagine you go through a similar process. How do your game design ideas develop over time, and how do you keep track of them?

Crush

Crush is not the first puzzle of game of its ilk for the PSP. You may recall, there was also Exit and Practical Intelligence Quotient. Players control characters in each of the aforementioned titles, unlike traditional puzzle games like Tetris of Lumines. But what seperates Crush from all of them is its perspective switching gameplay. Crush was developed exclusively for PSP by Zoe Mode. The closest video game comparison one can make to Crush is Nintendo's recent Wii title, Super Paper Mario. What makes both games special is the ability to switch perspective.

In Crush, players take control of Danny as he explores his unconscious. The nether-regions of the mind are manifested in elaborate three-dimensional floating block mazes. To complete each level, players must collect lost marbles while finding their way to the end. This, however, is impossible to achieve within the limitations of the three-dimensional world. Fortunately, players can switch the game's perspective at any time with the tap of a button, "crushing" it. What was once three-dimensional is now two. In Crush, Super Mario 64=Pac-Man. When the perspective is snapped from 3d to 2d. The whole world flattens to the plane on which Danny is standing. Foreground blocks and platforms fade backward, and background blocks come forward. Sometimes this means side-scroller style perspective, other times it may mean top down. This allows players to cross seemingly insurmountable obstacles. But what makes this gameplay mechanic so awesome?
This is what I like about Crush. The game has a single gameplay mechanic: switching perspective. This tool is simple enough to be understood, but complex and dynamic in use. The player understands this tool, what it does, how to use it, etc. Therefore, the game becomes a test of player skill. The question isn't how to use this gameplay mechanic, but how best to use it.

The fact that players can switch perspective is awesome, to be sure, but is a novelty compared to what else this game achieves. Crush successfully implements one of video gaming's greatest goals, challenge and player skill. The levels are a challenge, neigh, unbeatable without the perspective mechanic that Crush makes available. All thats left is how good is the player at using that mechanic. I'll tell you right now, this is what 90% of video games are, and what makes the best games so good. Think of any game you've ever played. Unless its built 100% on chance or luck, your game gives players a challenge along with tools to overcome that challenge. The best games figure out how to take these tools and make the game neither too easy nor too difficult for the player. The difficulty is dependant on how much player skill is required. Enter Crush. Players can crush the game world. Awesome. But the crushing is not what really matters, its the player's ability to use the mechanic that makes the game good.

Sources:
1up
Gamespy
IGN

Crush
Why do you think Crush is cool?
Do you agree with anything I just said? Why or why not?
Have you bought Crush yet? My mailbox address is...

Designing To a System

From SixSpace

Something I've pondered much lately is console-based game design. I believe whole heartedly that games should be designed for the specific console for which they're being developed. If you think about it, most of the better games on a console were designed for it specifically. This is part of the reason first-party games are in general better than third-party games, the teams design their games using the console's hardware as a blue print. Games are just better when they are built for the console itself. I feel that with multi-platform titles, developers often make the mistake of standardizing the game across all consoles. When really, each game, even ones that are multi-platform, should be designed according to each system's strengths. This is possibly more important now than ever before. We currently have three fairly different consoles and two very different handhelds, not to mention the PC. Each console has different strengths that a game should be designed to take advantage of.

Today, I start a sort of feature set that will periodically return to this blog. I call it "Designing To a System." And you say, "Don't you mean for?" No, but yes. Designing to a system is like writing a letter. Far away is someone you miss. So you pick out the perfect stationary, buy the best ballpoint pen (Pilot, for the record), and using your most articulate language, carefully craft an eloquent string of words that flawlessly describes your feelings for that person. In the same way, a game must be designed to a console. You want the game and its console to have a good relationship, so a game must be designed to work with the console as best as possible.Sometime within the next few day's I'm going to talk about the strengths of each console, and also post on a specific game I think is being designed immaculately for its system. Like a well-written letter, games are best designed to the system their for, as opposed to being designed like a stock-email.

Aspects of Too Human

Too Human recently recieved week-long coverage at IGN. Also, lead designer of Too Human, Dennis Dyack, was interview by Gamasutra today. This surge of news has revealed many details of Too Human that as a game designer I'm more than willing to dig into.Too Human is in development at Silicon Knights exclusively for the Xbox 360. The game is actually the first in a trilogy, but for now, the only details Microsoft and SK are revealing are on the first entry. This will be Silicon Knights' first game for the 360, having broken off from Nintendo in 2005. Though two years may seem long enough, Too Human was originally designed for the Playstation, and then moved onto the N64 before scrapped again in favor of its newest version. The game has change much since its beginnings, though, and is one of the most anticipated 360 titles due to release this year. There is plenty to discuss about Too Human, but there are two things in particular I wanted to mention pertaining to game design. One is the camera system; the other is the crippling of gameplay.Lets compare movies and games for a moment. Movies have automatically controlled cameras, not during filming of course, but what viewers see is what the director intended for them to see. Furthermore, viewers don't have to worry about the camera. They can watch a film and simply be present experiencing it. Obviously games are different, they're interactive, and thats the point. However, in 99% of games, players must split their focus. Players must pay attention to playing the game, controlling it and succeeding at the game. But, most of the time, players must also focus on keeping the camera centered on characters, targets, and goals. Camera control is part of gameplay, but in a way it also detracts from gameplay.

Camera is usually second in importance to playing the game. Players have to deal with the camera only because it is necessary to play, not because it is a necessary part of the game's enjoyment. The underlying problem is that developers rely upon player-controlled cameras because, when done right, they can work, but more so because player-controlled camera is the most successful and common camera system and, it seems, the only option. It is simply too difficult to predict what players will want or need to be looking at at any given moment. Thats why developers give players control over the camera, so they can look at what they want, when they want to. This is by and large achieved through the right analog stick. But Dennis Dyack and the team at Silicon Knights are bucking this trend. For some of Dyack's thoughts on game camera, please see an earlier post discussing this issue. What Silicon Knights has done is take the camera control out of the players hands.

from TooHuman.net

Too Human features a completely automated camera. The camera will dynamically track the player's and enemies' movements to get the best shot of the action. At least in theory. The system seems to work well in practice also, according to previews and videos. Allowing the camera to control itself removes what could be called a burden from the players' hands. At least thats what the team believes. IGN interviewed creative director at Microsoft Games Studios Ken Lobb. He had this to say:

As our audience gets bigger and bigger and bigger, having all of our games be dual-analog where the right analog stick is controlling the camera is something that's not super easy, especially if you want to see a particular scene from a different angle. If you want to make something more interesting from a camera perspective, having the player control that becomes even more complex....we get this cool what you might consider a normal third person camera blended with room cameras, cameras on splines, boss cameras, and more.

Cameras are complex. Unless you have split screens, there can only be one camera shooting from one perspective at a time. Silicon Knights is doing their best to find the optimal camera, it seems. The flip side of an automated camera system, is that the right analog is free for use. Too Human's combat system is played almost entirely with the right analog stick, adopting the dual-analog scheme also seen in EA's upcoming Skate. This has been done before, in games like Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Jet Li: Rise to Honor, and even Geomotry Wars (all Xbox titles, incedentally).

The player character of Too Human, Baldur, will attack in the direction dictated by the analog stick, according to the camera's viewpoint at the time. The right and left triggers in conjunction with the right analog stick shoot the primary and secondary ranged weapons, respectively. The game has a lock-on system, too, that will auto lock depending on which way the stick is being pointed. So, really, everything is based on the analog stick, which is quite different from most games out there. Whats most interesting though, is how the auto-cam and combat system work together. Lobb sums it up well:

It gives you a nice fluid ability to switch quickly between targets on the screen without having your camera jump all over the place. It all works together. . . .When you add a layer on top of that of, "We have some pretty cool stuff you can do with the sword with the right stick," it kind of disallowed the ability to give players control over the camera at all times.So it's a nice mix of creating an experience that's more like watching a movie, making a camera that's more accessible and developing a new control paradigm around combat with the guns being on the triggers and the sword being on the stick so that you can quickly switch between guns and sword. It's all fit together nicely

Silicon Knights is aiming for speed and fluidity. They want players to be able to kill and combo enemies quickly and efficiently without worrying about controlling the camera. Too Human takes camera control away from the player and replaces its normal input method with directional combat. This way, players can free-form fight enemies while the camera smoothly follows the action. Requiring the player to control the camera would A, not allow for directionally-based combat, and B, slow down the action. People can only focus on so many things at a time, removing the camera from the players hands allows them to focus solely on ripping through enemies. The design is unique and looks to be effective as well. My only question is what came first, using the right analog stick for combat, or having an automated camera? The answer is probably both simultaneously, thats how complementary they are.

The second aspect I wanted to touch on quickly was that of crippling gameplay. First, read this previous post discussing this very issue. Second, watch the seamless cinematics video of Too Human showing off the interactive cut-scene. Keep in mind the player has full control over Baldur during this flashback scene.

Did you notice anything? The player, Baldur, cannot run, only walk. Why? For cinematic effect. I love what Silicon Knights does in this scene (and likely other scenes as well). Baldur will only walk seemingly regardless of pressure applied on the analog stick (which is analog for a reason). Some may think thats counter-intuitive, I call it art. This small aspect of design shows me how much thought and care is going into the creation of Too Human, and how small decisions over gameplay can completely change a player's experience.

Too Much?
How would you feel, preliminarily, if Too Human was controlled with the tradition scheme of button pushes and analog camera control? Why or why not would this be preferable over the actual system Silicon Knights has employed?

What do you think of developers crippling your mobility in a game? Particularly this scene in Too Human, would you rather run? Why?

Heroes of Mana Design

Heroes of Mana is a real-time-strategy title for the Nintendo DS. The game is set in the Mana universe but follows an original story. Square-Enix is publishing, naturally, whereas Brownie Brown is the development house. Brownie Brown also developed Magical Starsign for the DS, released last year. Heroes of Mana is arguably the first true RTS for the DS, meaning Brownie Brown had no previous template, so to speak, to work from. Regardless, the game supposedly has a good storyline, and does have very nice graphics, in my opinion. But the true concern is, as always, the gameplay. Fortunately, the team has designed Heroes to play simply and effectively, while still leaving room for strategy.

But first, I need to get some other information out there. Hereos of Mana contains all of the basic RTS necessities: a minimap, fog of war, base building, resource gathering, and of course, combat. Each player can have a maximum of 25 units at a time. Units on different teams are indicated by the color of their health bars above their sprites. Allied units are green, enemy units are pink, neutral are blue.

Units are divided into four types: ground, heavy, flying, missile. Additionally, there are special units and hero units. Brownie Brown has implemented a standard rock-paper-scissors system with the basic four unit types. Each unit type take half damage from another type, and deal double damage to a third. For example, flying units deal double damage to heavy types, but take double damage from missile units. Also, flying units only deal half damage to missle units. This system works throughout all four types. Its an interesting design scheme because some unit types will take eight times as much damage as they are giving. An example is if a flying type is fighting a missile type, the missile type will deal eight times as much damage as the flying is giving back. A balance will be required in building armies. Players will have to see what their enemies are building and counter with the stronger unit type.

On to control. Alright, this is how it works. Heroes of Mana is all touch controlled. Which is a very good thing for a genre designed for the PC. There are a variety of ways to select units. Here is a list of all the control inputs:

• Tap a single unit to select it
• The bottom of the screen has four indicators, one for each unit type. Tapping these will select all on-screen units of the designated type.
• A "select group" icon is off to the right of the screen. Tapping it will allow players to draw on screen and lasso any specific units they want. Then players can command those units as a group, ordering them to travel or attack as needed.
• A touch screen icon allows the minimap to be switched to the bottom screen for stylus input. As far as I know, units can also be manipulated using the minimap.
• Heroes of Mana has eight super abilities that can be activated with touch screen icons. These abilites are automatic CG animations and will deal area of effect damage, among other things.
• Base building is all done within the home base airship, called the nightswan. Buildings will not be physically present on the battlefield.

Speaking conceptually, I think Brownie Brown has created a great RTS for the DS. The game system is very simple compared to other RTSs, which is good for a handheld game that can only handle so much information, graphics, and doesn't have much screen space. However, the combat is still complex enough to allow for strategic gameplay.







Touch Design
What do you like or dislike about the design of Heroes of Mana?
What would you change, if anything? Why?
The rock-paper-scissors scheme, by now, could be considered cliche.
-Is this scheme still a valid methd to balance units?
-What other balancing formats could be used?
The game terrain is 3D, the units meanwhile are 2D sprites.
-Why or why not is this a good design decision for a DS game?

Sources:
Gamespot
1up
IGN

GrimGrimoire: side-scrolling RTS

RTSs have been around for a long time. From WestWood's Dune, to Supreme Commander, the genre has made great strides in its development and complexity. However, the RTS can generally be broken into a "formula" that most all games in the genre adhere to. Leave it to Nippon Ichi then to break the mold. Nippon Ichi Software is the publishermost known for their slew of turn-based tactics games, including Disgea and Phantom Brave. Their games are considered by many to be rather innovative. NIS is now publishing a new RTS called GrimGrimoire for the PS2. The developer behind Grimoire is Vanillaware, which previously developed a game called Odin Sphere. Like the rest of NIS's titles, Grimoire is definitely innovative. Unlike any RTS I've ever heard of, GrimGrimoire is a side-scroller.

In GrimGrimoire, the player becomes Lillet Blan, a magic student at the Tower of the Silver Star magical academy. Five days into classes, the entire school is killed, except for Lillet. She instead falls into comotose, and when she awakens finds herself back at school day one. The goal is to discover the reason for the massacre and prevent it from occuring again. Like all other Nippon Ichi titles, Grimoire features a colorfully animated anime style, in this case, also potentially considered chibi. But what makes Grimoire so cool, is that its side-scrolling, and how the RTS gameplay accomodates for this. Players move around a hand cursor to select and order ghosts. The worry for a side-scrolling RTS, would be to order a bunch of minions over various levels and annoying blockades. However, Grimoire avoids this pitfall by allowing ghosts to pass through walls, floors, and objects. Now, I really like this. The game presents itself with a problem, that of terrain. But Vanillaware subsequently solves the problem in a clever and fitting way, by allowing units to pass through things otherwise considered obstacles.
In related news, apparently Nippon Ichi is now developing for Wii, which means we may soon be controlling GrimGrimoire with the signifcantly more convienient remote.

Strategize
What other techniques would you emply to make an RTS work in a side-scrolling environment?
How do you think the fact that Grimoire is side-scrolling affects the issues of console RTS control, generally tackled with by games including Goblin Commander and Lord of the Rings Battle for Middle Earth II.

Sources:
1up
IGN

Game Design Journal

Game design is a deep subject. Like medicine or theology, game design is best understood when researched and studied. This is the primary purpose of this blog. But no one blog nor an amalgam of them can reveal all there is to know about game design. It is a dynamic subject that can be observed from a variety of perspectives. One perspective I propose today is a Game Design Journal. This is a diary in which you pen all of your musings, exasperations, and conclusions on game design. No doubt many of you already make note of your random game design thoughts, possibly on spare scraps of paper. I think this is a wonderful thing to do. If you already are, keep it up. If your not, or if your looking to expand or organize your notes, then please read onward.

I've recently been wanting to journal specifically about my personal game experiences. This is the way it works. When playing a game, any game, (regardless of whether its lauded for excellence or mocked for its mediocrity) mentally note the various aspects that you find appealing or effective. Also, note things that you find appaling or ineffective. Ask yourself questions like the following: Why is blank part of this game cool? What does the art style do to compliment the game? How do the controls work, could they be better? Why do I like blank character? Then, ask more specific questions: Why did Retro Studios opt for their control scheme in Metroid Prime? How do the enemies in this game challenge me, through skill, problem-solving or some other way? What things are good or bad about Final Fantasy XII's license system?

Undoubtedly, these will prompt more and more questions and push you to ponder things you never thought mattered. I would recommend the journal to be simple. A handy pen and notepad works fine. As does a basic .txt document. You may never go back and read these entries, but other things are at work. Simply writing your thoughts forces you to think harder about any given topic. Also, the act of writing will strengthen your memory considerably, creating a greater imprint of the game design topics than otherwise only thinking of them. Lastly, games themselves are not the only thing that represent game design. Don't be afraid to think abstractly. I feel many seemingly unrelated topics can easily be applied to game design. Biking, the time/space continuum, how your stereo works, all of these are viable subjects for provoking thoughts on design theory, in the same way articles on game design do.

Have fun exploring the vast reaches of game design theory and the infinite possiblites it offers.


Artwork:
Gnome Warlock Shop by Harald Oesterle at Blizzard Fan Art