Posts Tagged ‘development’

Obvious

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

This time, I’m starting an article with a noise. I’d like to have been able to say that the noise was a sonorous fanfare or roaring drum roll. As a result, it’s somewhat disappointing when I inform you that I’ve chosen to start this article with a “pfutt”. And not the pfutt of triumph, like a miniature steam engine being tested or a helicopter rotor starting up. No, the pfutt I want to you to think of in your head is the one made by electronic equipment, just before it gives out completely and makes it’s way to the great Radio Shack in the sky. It’s a rather depressing and British sort of failure, much like something breathing its last and quietly giving out, instead of a cacophony of flash, bang and acrid smoke that lingers around your flat for days afterwards. Anyhow, one mustn’t be too downbeat.

So as you can probably guess, Something Broke. The current culprit of choice is the power supply unit on my fiance’s computer, an unbadged and unbranded steel box that I should have replaced as soon as the collection of parts arrived about three years ago. But hindsight is wonderful in this instance, and now begins the laborious process of identifying the broken parts, ordering replacements and fitting them. It’ll be enough to keep me out of trouble, but it’s somewhat irritating all the same. Still, at least I won’t have to suffer the pain of many in my shoes by dialling some premium rate phone number to explain to someone who barely speaks my language why they should send an engineer out and what they need to replace. Be thankful for small mercies, I’m told. The fiance is currently happily using the gaming laptop we recently purchased, so at least there’s no immediate rush.

Spring cleaning has also been afoot – my own desktop has been scrubbed clean, with both XP and Vista installed and existing side by side. I’ve debated carving up a portion for Linux as well, but as my dev work is currently hosted online I’ve got no need for an Ubuntu installation. It was while doing all this work that I stumbled upon something that struck me as completely obvious, but which I’m amazed hasn’t happened. Every time I want to refresh my computer I have to back up all my user data, reformat the hard drive, reinstall the operating system and my applications, then finally reload all my user data. If I want to move from one operating system to another I usually have to install a new set of applications and hope my user data can still be read by these applications. And even so, if the drive fails all my user data is lost.

But hang on a minute, I carry around with me a device with an 8GB storage drive. Why can’t I treat the operating system as a commodity, where the PC, OS and any associated drivers are all stored in one location while my own applications, data files and so on are all retained independently of the OS on some kind of removable storage that I can carry around with me. If I want to use a different PC, why can’t I plug in a drive and just use all of my existing applications, licensed to me as an individual rather than a transient machine that may be replaced sooner or later? Why does my user data, application data and operating system need to be so closely intertwined?

This removable storage – let’s call it a Docker – I could plug it into my desktop and get my games, apps, music, documents and so on. I could unplug it and move it into my laptop and get exactly the same stuff available. If I was visiting friends, I could just take my Docker with me and plug it into their machine if I wanted to show them a game I had been playing. But more than that, because my Docker isn’t tied to an OS, I could plug it into a Linux box or a Macbook or any machine, and as long as it was compatible with my Docker it would run all the apps on it and allow me to use all my files. It makes the OS a commodity – I could pick and choose based on what I wanted rather than what ran the applications I wanted, because every OS would run the same apps.

With me so far?

So, what would the Docker look like? Would it be a solid-state-drive with a small interface, or something with a screen and Bluetooth if you wanted to exchange files on the move? Would it be something like an iPhone, giving you access to your files wherever you are? There initially sounds like a number of options on what this small device could look like and what it could offer people. After all, once you have a large storage device (I hear you can buy 512GB ones now) the possibilities are endless.

But does it have to exist at all, or could it all be “in the cloud”? Could we just hold our Docker as a virtual container on the internet, with users able to access their data anywhere they choose to go? Or would the Docker be something physical but with a synchronisation service from someone like Google, ensuring that everything on it is continually backed up. Lose your docker and you could have it locked and wiped next time it speaks to the cloud, while your replacement rebuilds your file structure from everything you have backed up.

Will it happen?

Unlikely. The OS makers like the application lock-in they get so far, as it creates a barrier to migration. If it does start to happen though, it’ll probably be in hybrid devices that double as phones, MP3 players and so on in order to keep costs down and provide users with an incentive to try. Still, if it does happen, I’d be surprised if I was the first person to come up with the idea.
Sometimes, overcoming the status quo is the biggest obstacle an idea faces.

Gathering

Saturday, March 21st, 2009

The approaching week heralds the start of the annual Game Developers Conference over in San Francisco. As the name suggests, it’s more of a developer shindig than a marketing exercise, but you generally tend to get a bucket of announcements before, during and after the event that tend to mix things up a little. However, instead of just pulling through what’s going on during the week and what’s in the announcement pipeline, I thought I’d mix things up a little by throwing in some opinion on some of the key things that have caught my eye so far.

playstation3

PlayStation 3: Nice box, hefty price

Starting off, we have a pile of stuff around the Playstation 3. There’s been murmurings around a price cut for months now, with developers crying out for one and Sony steadfastly refusing to do anything about it. With this there’s a bit of history – at launch the Playstation 3 wasn’t a must have accessory. People weren’t queueing up to buy it as they had all picked up Xbox 360s and were having fun with them. The only real pitch Sony had was to position it as a cheap Blu-ray player as well as a games console and pick up some purchases from the enthusiast AV/home cinema crowd. Moving forward, now they’ve got a stack of top quality games on the platform but there’s still nothing there to help persuade players to switch from the Xbox or Wii. In fact, there’s a handful of reasons why players like myself aren’t running out there and buying one.

  • That £300 price tag. It doesn’t matter if the build quality is better or the technology’s superior if there’s two other consoles out there for significantly less dough. With the 360 for £170 and the Wii at £180, I’m really struggling to justify parting with three hundred notes for Sony’s box. I don’t have a blu-ray player and my TV only does 720P, so I’m in no rush to upgrade to hi-def film and will probably only do so when my upscaling DVD player breaks.
  • The friends list tie-in. On Xbox Live I’ve got all my friends listed there. I get alerts when they come online and get invites to multiplayer sessions through it. It’s all seamless, and it all ties in with my MSN/Windows Live neatly. If I move over to the PS3, I lose all that and have to rebuild it again. Coupled with the problem that most of my mates aren’t PS3 owners anyway and it means that most of my tine would be made up of solo play or multiplayer with some random teenager with Tourette’s.
  • The lack of compelling exclusives. Most of the stuff I want to play is available on both platforms and where you have an exclusive deal on one you can usually find an equivalent title on another (think Gears of War, Killzone and Resistance: Fall of Man). There is stuff on there like Flower and Pixel Junk: Eden, but these are just downloadables and certainly not something I’d splash out a huge chunk of wedge just to play.

Now I might not be your typical Sony customer, but it’s just the way I read things at the moment. The only thing the PS3 has going for it at the moment is the technology. If it can hang in there for about another year, you’ll start to hear developers complaining of capping out on what the XBox 360 is capable of. If that starts to happen and you get simultaneous releases that have a huge difference in quality between versions on the two consoles, you might find people more willing to bite the bullet and migrate. Until then though, about all Sony can do is change the price and encourage more people to give the system a try.

The PhysX Card: Substituted with a Software API

The PhysX Card: Substituted with a Software API

The next thing I’m struggling to grapple with is the flavour of the month feature of doing physics work on the GPU. This has been kicking around ever since NVidia bought Ageia, a small company that specialised in making expansion cards and an accompanying API (called PhysX) purely to deal with physics based calculations. The idea was that effects could be made more realistic by performing more accurate collision modelling, cloth effects and so on. NVidia bought the tech, turned it into a software API and got it it run on their own graphics processors. They’ve now licensed the tech to Sony for use in the Playstation 3, meaning that developers can now use the GPU instead of one of the Cell cores for physics work. I’m still trying to work out why anyone would bother with this, as devs are still struggling to push the Cell to it’s maximum performance with current titles. Besides, most places seem to be using Havok for their middleware, so why trying to grapple with something else that’s not really needed? And wouldn’t it be more sensible for someone like Intel to pick this one up if it was really needed and cram it into their line of processors before shunting the frames off to the GPU for assembly and rendering? The whole thing feels like a tick-box feature without any real use and will probably be made redundant with CPU development over time, just like maths coprocessors.

Finally, this year’s conference seems to have a large chunk of it devoted to the legendary Casual Gamer. The general punditry goes that the Nintendo Wii is a casual gaming platform designed for casual gamers. As it’s shown that there is a market out there for casual gamers due to it’s astronomical sales, the logic follows that developers should be making games to target them. Now, without getting into the whole debate over what a casual gamer is (I’ll save that for another blogpost) are these people actually picking up many thirdparty titles to play on their console? I’d love to see some stats on this, as my gut feel (and I hope I’m wrong) is that most Wii owners are playing Wii Fit/Music/Sports, or a Mario, Sonic or Zelda game and not much else besides. My other wonder is how platforms like the DS or iPhone come into it – are these casual gamers trying something out, or hardcore gamers having a bit of a “game snack” during their free time? Again, I’d love to see some stats.

So, while the yearly developer gathering takes place it’ll be interesting to see what comes out. I also wonder what their hopes are for the year and what direction they’d like to see the industry head in. Till then, it’ll be gamers like ourselves who are peering in from outside, guessing at what’s going to happen next. And maybe, just maybe, I’ll work out if I fall into the Hardcore or Casual bracket.

Minstrels

Wednesday, January 28th, 2009

It’s sometimes remarked that videogames are the most complex form of entertainment available. Some have been known to cost more to produce that a big Hollywood blockbuster movie, while others have managed to languish in development hell. But as the technology involved in videogame production begins to plateau (the next generation of consoles is estimated to launch in 2012), what methods do developers have to ensure their games manage to capture the attention of the marketplace and media?

Almost any videogame can be neatly divided into three discrete sections or domains. The first and probably the most understood from a computing perspective is the technology that underpins it. This includes components such as the graphics and physics engines, networking facilities and so on. Some developers tend to construct the technology themselves, while others use middleware and toolsets available from various third parties. The second component is the set of rules, mechanics and principles that make up the game, such as lining up blocks to make complete rows in Tetris or traversing a series of obstacles and enemies in Super Mario Bros. Rules and mechanics can govern how a player can interact with various aspects of the game, but crucially also involve how elements may behave reactively to player behaviour. Finally, videogames have a story, plot or setting that surrounds the game and provides meaning for why the game mechanics exist. Some game aspects, such as art, model work, music and so on may straddle more than one area, as they may have an impact on the technologies employed or the way the story is revealed to the player. It’s also fair to say that different games will have different weightings on one of the three aspects, with a first person shooter being more reliant on a strong game engine, while an RPG would be more focused on providing a strong game world and a cohesive set of quests for the player to work through.

While this is all well and good, what relevance does it have? Well, as is traditional at this time of the year, the great and good of videogaming journalism have been providing their feedback on the greatest games of 2008. But while the similarity between the titles is interesting in it’s own way, even more so are the reasons why the particular videogames have been chosen. Titles like Fallout 3, Fable II, LittleBigPlanet and World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King seem to be continually cited in “best of 2008″ lists not because they introduced new technologies but because of the stories they told (or in the case of LBP the stories it allows the players to tell). One quote I heard from the Custom PC Podcast was that 2008 was “the year of the story”, and while I’m not sure I feel as strongly about last year’s selection of releases, I can see where the quote was coming from. Technical aspects of a game can be rapidly developed through the use of off-the-shelf middleware and toolsets such as the Havok physics engine and the modeller/animator 3ds Max. Even entire game engines are available, with Valve offering Source, Crytek offering the CryEngine and id Software developing id Tech 5. Such an abundance of options available allow a developer to free up more resources developing and refining the game itself.

It’s difficult to say though if videogames are developing richer stories because they are able to spend more time on it, or if the industry as a whole is generally becoming more mature. Nowadays it’s not unusual to find a member of the development team responsible for the storyline or background of a new title. Professional writers are frequently consulted during development, from generating rough ideas or concepts through to penning the plot single-handed. As Clive Barker’s Jericho demonstrates, having a strong plotline and setting doesn’t guarantee an excellent game, just as Mirror’s Edge demonstrates a game where exposing more of Rhianna Pratchett’s story may have enhanced the game further. That said, there does feel to be a strong trend from technologically groundbreaking games such as Quake to more generally inspiring titles such as Grand Theft Auto 4 and Left 4 Dead.

There is one other striking feeling about the “Best of 2008″ lists – the domination of consoles as opposed to PC versions. Admittedly there’s the almost perennial argument about the death of PC gaming and the general failure of Microsoft’s “Games for Windows” initiative, or how Spore being the most pirated game of 2008 either demonstrates the folly of DRM protection or the folly of developing for the PC. That aside, the PC has traditionally been the traditional technology showcase for videogaming, being the platform where the newest concepts from industry stalwarts would be demonstrated. With consumers becoming less and less interested in the cutting edge of videogaming tech (as record sales of the Wii have shown), will the PC’s standing diminish? It almost feels as if the Xbox has done too well in encouraging PC developers to port to the console, as for me at least almost all the titles I’m getting excited about for 2009 are being launched either simultaneously or exclusively on the consoles. Could it be that providing the hardcore gaming community with a continually refreshed visual extravaganza is becoming less of a priority, and that instead developers are focusing on games that cater more for the middle road of gaming while letting the middleware developers provide the technological upgrades on a slower path?

For me, the videogaming industry will trend in similar ways to the cinematic one. By pulling away from being a direct innovator of technology but instead influencing technological development and direction and instead focusing on delivering a rich and entertaining product that many more of us can enjoy. Just like the minstrels from days gone by, who would seek to entertain us with the skills they had and the instruments available, so do I think today’s developers will share new tales with us with an altogether more modern ensemble.

Interlock

Thursday, January 15th, 2009

Right when the market seems to be saturated with “me too” fantasy MMO titles, another one emerges from the developmental primordial soup and starts gathering momentum. This time it’s the turn of Aion: The Tower of Eternity to emerge into the dual headbeams that are the MMO-playing population’s insatiable appetite for new content. But since we’ve had Lord of the Rings Online fail to gain a significant handhold on the cliff face of market share, Age of Conan rapidly fall into the depths of oblivion and Warhammer: Age of Reckoning struggle to he heard, what makes this new game any different? If a record-breaking uptake of 170,000 players in the initial Korean beta is anything to go by, this could be a game to surprise the cynics among us.

Aion: JRPG influences

Aion: JRPG influences

One concept that pretty much every videogamer has become aware of, even if it’s only at some subconscious level, is the idea of a Japanese role-playing game or JRPG. This unique variant originated from Western tabletop RPGs such as Dungeons and Dragons being imported into Japan and translated, with homegrown variants springing up shortly afterwards.  These then translated into videogame products, which is where series like Final Fantasy come in. It’s difficult to say if later Korean MMOs such as Lineage are a direct result of the JRPG videogames, but there are some heavy influences that come through in areas such as art direction (smooth, anime-style characters) and gameplay choices (long, drawn out and repetitive grinding sessions). Players seem to love them, with Lineage notching up 3 million players at it’s peak, while the Final Fantasy series has enjoyed continued international acclaim. It comes as no surprise then to see NCsoft try and explore this market again with a high-fantasy MMO that has a distinctly different taste to the orcs, goblins and kobolds that typically inhabit more Western fare.

Atreia: a world of two halves

Atreia: a world of two halves

The setting of the game lends it to a range of environments, with one half of the world of Atreia being continually bathed in light while the other languishes in darkness.  These two halves occupy the inside of two hemispheres, with the rubble and rock between them described as ‘The Abyss’. The background to the story involves the central tower being shattered halfway, with the inhabitants of each hemisphere blaming the other. Thus, the stage is set for conflict between the radiant Eloys and the shadowy Asmodians, providing PVP fanatics with all the reason they need to gank with impunity. Mindful of the upset that can be caused if one faction starts to dominate, a quirky design trick is to introduce an AI controlled faction called the Balaur in order to maintain some sort of balance. Depending on the amount of control each faction exhibits, the Baular can switch sides from fighting alongside to against them. It’s a clever solution to a problem that can cause heavy issues in PVP specific realms where one faction heavily outnumbers another.  NCsoft are trying to christen this type of realm design ‘PvPvE’, but it does feel to be more of a case of PvE with a special PvP zone between the two PvE areas.

Eloy: Bunch of posers

Eloy: Bunch of posers

Aion: The Tower of Eternity has all the feel of a Japanese or Korean videogame. The visuals are stunning to look at, with clever texture and model work benefiting from the Crytek CryEngine used in Far Cry. Atmospheric lighting and glow effects are all there, with sunny Elysium, gloomy Asmodae and the Abyss all providing a range of environments to work with. Although influences from other fantasy settings are evident, the styling and art direction provide enough distinction to make this feel a game in it’s own right rather than just a collage of borrowed ideas. For a start, nothing looks ugly – not the creatures, not the landscapes, not the non-player characters – nothing. Whether it’s due to it’s unique heritage or just a by-product of game lore, but there is a definite aura of beauty about it. The characters themselves look like they’ve come out of a top anime movie, complete with Dragonball-Z hairstyles, plated armour and humorously over-sized weapons. The character choices themselves though are fairly straightforward – you can either choose an Asmodean or an Eloy, but there are no other racial choices available. Customisation is in a similar ball-park to Age of Conan, with sliders for almost every option conceivable. While having a limited number of choices is likely to upset players who want to play Mr Ugly, it does mean that all those issues such as racial abilities and balancing them are removed.

Classes: Simple choices

Classes: Simple choices

Character development is also straightforward. Four classes are initially available: Scout, Warrior, Mage and Priest. From there, players can later specialise into one of two subclasses, depending on what their personal preference is. For a warrior, this means specialising as either a tanking Templar or a general combat Gladiator. Unlike other games where switching between these two types is easy, in Aion the change becomes permanent. Although this can be a limiting choice, characters can also pick up ’stigma stones’ from the corpses of defeated monsters and use them to gain the abilities of other classes. This can mean that a mage would be able to wear heavy armour, or a warrior could gain some healing abilities.  Characters are restricted with how many stigma stones they can use and when they can swap them, and some stones will be harder to find and become bound to the character when used. It does mean though that some of the characters designed mainly for group roles such as healers and tanks will have a little more versatility during solo play. It also means that character skills can be bought and sold, providing something new for player economies to haggle over. Characters also gain the ability to fly at their tenth level, although it’s fairly tightly controlled. At first, a character can only fly for a minute, although this can be increased through the use of items, potions and general character development. Flight will also be useful in combat, with a number of flight-only abilities such as dive-bombing being possible.

Combat: Button-mashing optional

Combat: Button-mashing optional

Adventuring in Aion is available in three ways, with either solo-play, 6-man parties or 9-party raids available. Most of the content is open-world, including the dungeons, with only limited content being instanced. As far as combat goes, it’s a fairly standard hack-and-slash or spellcasting affair, with a combo ability mechanism bolted on to provide even more spectacular visuals. Combo trees are also talked about, allowing a player to customise an attack to add a particular effect. Now, while I’m not averse to having combo-mechanisms to pull off spectacular attacks instead of blindly mashing buttons, I do get a little nervous when they start talking about combo trees. If the options are nice and simple I can’t see a problem with it, but if you end up with about ten different combo tree options for each ability it rapidly becomes unwieldy. There’s also what happens if a combo fails – do you deal some damage, or do you have to complete it exactly in order to do anything at all? It’s these subtle choices that can take a cool design idea and either make it something that adds a little uniqueness or something that makes it inherently frustrating. Then there’s the death penalty – not only does your character suffer debilitating effects for a short time and restart at a fixed location, but there’s also an experience point penalty. I thought we’d moved beyond these penalties, as it means that if you’re having a bad day questing or just continually getting ganked in PVP you can actually lose levels and start moving backwards. Yes, death should be harsh and unrewarding, but XP penalties are one of those design choices that should have been discarded long ago.

Crafting: can be a gamble

Crafting: can be a gamble

Crafting also seems to be one of those areas where game design choices seem to reward with one hand and punish with the other. Although the usual rollout of professions are there, the way they are implemented is cause for concern. As well as having a regular crafting success or a critical success to make an item with increased stats, a character can also fail to craft anything at all. This places increased risk on crafting economies – just imagine collecting the resources to craft a difficult to make set of armour and finding a blacksmith willing to make it, only to have your materials wasted by a failed crafting. As a consolation, players will be able to transmute resources from one type to another (such as wood into iron), but it means that you’re more likely to sell materials and buy completed items instead of finding a crafter and paying a small fee to get an item made.

At the end of the day, Aion is as much a game trying to interlock two gaming cultures together as it is about two factions opposing each other. In making concessions to western gameplay styles while still keeping eastern roots, it’s attempting to carve out a niche for itself that it hopes will make it appealing to a wide range of audiences. But while design choices seek to punish players for unlucky play sessions, reaching audiences in depth may be more of a challenge. Although it’s easy to attract a number of players keen on the more hardcore aspects of an MMO, pulling in the large numbers of casual gamers out there may prove more of a challenge.

Aspirations

Friday, January 2nd, 2009

Videogames throughout the years have set a challenge for those that play them. Whether it’s through a series of puzzles that get more ingenious and complex as the game advances, or through an increasingly concept sequence of moves that you guide a character through, it’s become an agreed mechanic that a game becomes more difficult as it progresses. The way a game becomes increasingly difficult, or the difficulty curve, is one of the key tools that a game designer has that can dramatically affect the playable lifespan of a game. Make it too easy and the player won’t feel challenged, walk through the game quickly and ultimately be left unsatisfied. Make it too hard and the game becomes frustrating, turning players off and ultimately kicking any hopes you had for making a sequel out of the window. It’s a tightrope balancing act that relies heavily on playtesting to get right, which is why when it’s not done properly it’s incredibly noticeable.

DooM: Multiple difficuly options available

DooM: Multiple difficuly options available

Going back through history, the earliest videogames traditionally took a static approach to difficulty. Although games demonstrated a difficulty curve, there wasn’t any way to alter it. If you couldn’t complete the game, it was either a case of getting a friend to complete it for you, or finding a way to cheat so that you could overcome an obstacle. Cheat codes were passed around school playgrounds like sacred lore, offering young gamers a sure-fire way to finish certain games if only to see how the story ends.  Although cheat codes offered developers a back-out clause of allowing a player a way of making the game easier, it wasn’t until difficulty menus started emerging that players could really choose how difficult they wanted a game to be. This was arguably popularised through the id software classic DooM with it’s now legendary “Nightmare” difficulty setting being the hardest of five different ones available. The legacy left behind by this still crops up in more modern videogames, typically first-person shooters. As time has progressed, techniques such as dynamic difficulty adjustment have been developed in order to tune a game experience even more closely to the person playing it. The difficulty of individual components that may make up an encounter or level are also studied in much more detail now, in order to control elements such as pacing in much the same way that a director or editor would seek to control the pacing of a scene in a film.

All this, in a rather roundabout way, brings us to the central theme of this post: defining the difficulty level of MMO content. Problem is, in an MMO, you don’t really have the option of letting the player choose a difficulty level to play at. Pretty much all of the content is designed in such a way that the majority of players will get to experience it, if they want to. The problems emerge when you have a clash between two parts of a player’s MMO experience – levelling their character, and “endgame” content.

Burning Crusade: Lots of content, flow restricted

Burning Crusade: Lots of content, flow restricted

As a player levels up, there’s usually a lot for them to do: there’s quests to complete, zones to explore, dungeons to investigate and so on. As they progress, their character develops by gaining new gear, becoming tougher and gaining new skills and abilities. Once a player hits maximum level, their options become more limited: they can take part in maximum level dungeons, invest time in PvP, or look at joining a raid group. As a result, your choices as a developer become limited – you want to maximise the value of the content already available at endgame, but you also wan to be able to provide new content in a timely fashion for players to experience. This is where the difficulty curve comes into play – by varying the difficulty of challenges sufficiently at endgame, you force players into a situation where they have to complete the easier content before they can move on to the more difficult stuff. You can even put artificial barriers in to play in order to slow down the progression between one grade of content and another. Get it wrong, and the players will have rapidly completed the hardest content you have available, putting increased pressure on your development teams to churn out more content, and increasing the risk that the new content will be rushed. To give an example of this, I’ll use two popular examples from the same game: The Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King, both expansions for World of Warcraft.

Burning Crusade Key/Attunement chart

Burning Crusade: Gates galore

On release, The Burning Crusade introduced two new concepts for endgame players. For 5-man dungeons, players would have the option of tackling them at either their standard difficulty setting or a new “heroic” one, specifically tuned for endgame players with a minimum level of equipment on their characters. In addition, unlocking the heroic mode for a dungeon usually required completing it in normal mode a number of times. Beyond that, being able to access raid content relied on players completing a number of tasks in 5-man dungeons, while accessing higher tier raiding required players to complete lower tier raid locales first. This enforced gating process meant that upon release, Blizzard would have a reasonable idea how long it would take for groups to progress through the content. It also meant that the complexity or challenge of each instance was less of a risk – it didn’t matter if the difficulty curve was poorly implemented if the flow of players into the higher content was restricted through the use of gates. Over time the gates and restrictions were removed in order to open up content to more players, but by then Blizzard had managed to release further content updates in order to keep players with something to do. More than that though, having far off goals provided players with an aspiration to work towards, even if they would never ultimately reach that goal.

Wrath of the Lich King: No gating

Wrath of the Lich King: No gating

By contrast, Wrath of the Lich King has been completely open to players. There are no gates or hoops for players to jump through, and heroic modes are available to all players as soon as they reach endgame. Only, it hasn’t been as successful as one would have hoped. The normal modes of endgame dungeons have been largely discarded, as heroic ones are instantly available and in many cases are only marginally more difficult. This in a stroke halves the replay value of these dungeons – the trick was to use the gear your character would collect in the normal ones to enable you to complete the heroic ones, but if the gear from normal dungeons is worthless and heroic ones are easy to complete, why bother going through that step if you’re not forced to by some artificial gate? The situation gets worse with raiding – players can throw themselves into either a 10-man or 25-man version of every raid dungeon currently available and are likely to be able to complete it. There’s no tiering or gating mechanism in place, which means that once players have gorged their fill on existing content they start turning to Blizzard asking for more. Understandably, the responses have been less than firm . Although content patches are planned, there are no firm dates on when they’ll arrive or what’s in them.

Morton's Fork: both prongs are unappealing

Morton's Fork: both prongs are unappealing

For Blizzard, as much as any developer, it’s a difficult situation with no easy choices. Although it’s painfully obvious now that the difficulty level of much of the endgame Lick King content is not only low but closely packed together, it’s endemic of a Morton’s Fork when it comes to building an MMO difficulty curve. Do you build gates, quests, attunements and so on in order to restrict the flow of players through content, or do you rely on the intrinsic difficulty level of each piece of content to control the pace of progression for you? Neither are particularly appealing to the player base, as on one hand accusations of “holding players back” emerges, while on the other the risk of unbalanced content becomes much more pivotal in the player experience. For my own end, I prefer hard gating mechanisms, as they provide a checkpoint that the player has to work through as well as a mechanism that can be removed once further content is in place.

More than this though, I think there’s a more fundamental question to ask. Do players need a mixture of both goals (I’m going to finish this dungeon) and aspirations (One day I’ll have a full set of top-grade armour) in order to keep them motivated to play a game in the long term? More than that though, how dependant are they on those aspirations, even though they may never achieve them? And does providing a game with few challenges have the result of generating fewer aspirations in their playerbase? For me, a game without long-term goals to work towards leads me to wondering what all the short-term goals are in aid of, how they fit together and where they’re ultimately going to lead my character. And as soon as you get that seed of doubt about your short-term goals, your motivation to complete them evaporates like morning dew.

Develop

Saturday, December 20th, 2008

One of the things that I read recently was The Register’s guide to Warcraft in 2008. In it, Austin Modine essentially goes on about how World of Warcraft has consistently beaten other MMOs such as Age of Conan, Warhammer: Age of Reckoning and so on. In his opinion, the reason why WoW is so successful is because they’ve made the game too easy to take part in – that by systematically simplifying and reducing the complexity of the game, you increase it’s accessibility to more players. While I think that’s true to a certain extent, I think Modine could have dug deeper and found out why the MMO industry is being dominated by a single big player. Just simply saying that people play WoW because everyone else is feels like a cop-out.

The original version of Everquest

The original version of Everquest

So what’s made WoW so successful, straight from launch? Well, two of the three lead designers on the game (Rob “Furor” Pardo and Jeff “Tigole” Kaplan) were both heavy players of the EverQuest series of games, being part of the same guild. This meant that although you had a veteran game designer in the form of Tom Chilton, it’s reasonably safe to assume that the design team were focused strongly on what concepts would make the game more fun for the player and which would pull away from that. With this in place, concepts that had previously been traditional in MMOs (such as a heavy death penalty) were abandoned and new ones that rewarded players (such as granting players a bonus for taking regular breaks) became the norm. Before the game was even announced, the stage was set for World of Warcraft to become a mainstream MMO, designed from the core with the player in mind.

By the same token, development of a new MMO can be a high-cost, high-risk business. Blizzard managed to mitigate a large chunk of this risk by using the same root engine for both World of Warcraft and Warcraft III, the continuation of their real-time-strategy series, forking development part-way down the process so that they could be tailored for their eventual purpose. This meant that a lot of datafile formats and toolsets could be repurposed to go from one game to another, allowing you to share your development cost between three titles. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if the same thing was happening with their current in-development titles, Diablo III and Starcraft II. This afforded them additional luxuries not commonly known to game developers – additional development time. WoW was in production for about 5 years while various design choices were implemented, tested and so on.  One often used mantra by Blizzard designers is “iterate, iterate, iterate” or continually revisit concepts until you’re completely happy with how they work. By comparison, most other MMOs tend to go through a punishing two year development cycle where as much as possible is crammed in before launch, with further content promised as patch updates later.

Screenshot from Age of Conan

Age of Conan: looks pretty, lacks content

Following on from this Blizzard had a couple of luxuries. The low polygon count strategy allowed the art and animation teams to create a large amount of assets – items, creatures, monsters, environments and so on – quickly and easily. This meant that they could ramp up the number of developers working on questing content such as building storylines, developing quest hubs and generally making sure that there was plenty of content to lead a player from one area of the game to another. By contrast, most MMOs of late (I’m thinking of Lord of the Rings Online and Age of Conan) have been really heavy on pushing the realism factor or advancing graphical capabilities in order to win some screenshot space in the videogaming press, or to have some flyover videos to impress the public with.  Eye candy might be great for the initial wow factor, but it’s content that keeps people hooked and playing for months on end.

Finally, Betas. Now, I’ve taken part in a few beta trials, and they’ve usually been of the kind that starts about 3 months before release, just in order to make sure that there are no glaring problems with the wide variety of hardware out there. This was particularly the case with Tabula Rasa and Hellgate: London, where the beta was more of a pre-release demo than an external testing phase. Compare that with the 7 month beta window that WoW had before release and the sheer amount of changes and revamps that took place when developers found concepts that just weren’t working for players. Even post-lanch, Blizzard kept piling on the pressure by releasing new content on a regular basis. This allowed gamers to build confidence with Blizzard and the development teams, reassuring them that they wouldn’t be left with a game that suffers from a lack of post-release support.

So as you can see, Blizzard made several strategic choices that gave their movement into the MMO arena the best possible chance to succeed.

Hellgate: London eventually flagshipped

Hellgate: London eventually flagshipped

It’s only natural to assume that as a result, other publishers would consider learning from this and foster their own creative paths in order to support the mammoth amount of work that an MMO requires. Unfortunately, this hasn’t exactly been the case. In LOTRO the game was pretty but dull, with a huge amount of “wouldn’t it be cool if…?” and not enough “how do we make this fun to play?”.  In Age of Conan the game suffered from a lack of cohesion between the various different aspects – items had stats associated with them but it wasn’t obvious how each stat benefited your character, and crafting and player economies were severely neglected. In Hellgate: London, Flagship Studios tried to circumvent a large part of the development process by having different aspects of the world being randomly generated on the fly, but this only served to make areas feel repetitive and indistinct once the scenery had been encountered a handful of times. Not only that, but the nascent development company got heavily tarred with an internet meme that only grew as they became insolvent.

That hasn’t stopped studios from taking risks and developing MMOs. Star Wars: The Old Republic, Star Trek Online, DC Universe Online, Jumpgate Evolution and Otherland to name but a few. Of these, I have fairly high hopes for SW:TOR as it’s being developed by Bioware, formerly of Neverwinter Nights and Mass Effect fame.  They’re used to developing role-playing games with a high level of content (particularly with NWN, which also featured a high level of online capability). I would also really like to see Jumpgate Evolution succeed, but it feels like Codemasters are going down the same roads they have before. They haven’t started a beta phase yet they’re proclaiming a release window of Spring 2009, which goes back to my point earlier about betas being used as a pre-release demo. I’d also really like to see Otherland succeed, but I’m concerned that RealU (the developers, based in Singapore) may have bitten off more than they can chew with an MMO being the first title they’ll release. I’d hate to see this turn into another Flagship.

Will games companies treat the MMO concept as something that requires a unique design path and strategy, respecting what players wants are in order to make a game with true mass-market appeal? Or will they cave to the demands of their publishers and stockholders to produce games that ship within a rigid release window, but ultimately fall flat? Is it possible for a developer to achieve both of these goals? Is an MMO the right thing for a newborn developer to focus on, or should they earn their stripes by pushing out some easier to develop but still hard to do well traditional role-playing games beforehand? It seems that as long as we have studios willing to venture into MMO territory, and as long as we have publishers to finance them, that we’ll see developers going over the same classic mistakes and fail to gain any meaningful market share. Blizzard has already demonstrated there’s a huge mass market out there waiting for the developer that gets it right. It’s just up to the developer to figure out what the right moves are.


SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline