Player Driven Design
In my last game design post, I talked about a nonlinear game with an environment which allowed emergent gameplay through the creation of many different elements which all interacted with each other in different ways. However, a sandbox world does not make a game by itself, although it provides the basis for nonlinear gameplay.
I also talked about taking out the boring quest/mission mechanic found in many open world games, which basically make you perform a linear mission in an open world. Some of these missions aren't totally linear. They might be something like "kill 10 henchmen", and require you to explore the open world a little and find the henchmen you need to kill. Sure, its not really linear, but this is usually fairly boring because the game designers are just shoving their open world down your throat. You're not really exploring it because you want to.
To truly create an open world, you shouldn't have such boring and linear goals at all. Many simulation type games do this. In the Sims, your only long-term goals are to make a family and retire. Even these are optional, depending on how you want to play. However, there are a lot of short term goals: buy some food, read a book, flirt with another sim, etc...
Another example is the fantasy simulation Dwarf Fortress, where you control a bunch of dwarfs in a randomly generated world. Your only long term goal is to make your fortress survive and prosper. Short term goals might be to harvest enough food to live off of, or to fight off any goblins who might be attacking you. As you progress, more and more challenges present themselves. Satisfy the various nobles who come to live in your fortress. Fight bigger and more powerful creatures like titans and dragons.
In both of these games, almost all of the goals are created by the player. The game never tells you what to do. Instead you think "Hm, I think I want to cover the ground outside my fortress with so many traps goblins won't want to come within two miles of my walls." I think this is the kind of attitude which needs to be taken when creating nonlinear games in a more "standard" genre, such as a shooter or action game.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Dwarf Fortress
It was spring. Finally, the harsh winter was over. With the change of seasons, a caravan of elven traders decided to pay a visit to my fortress. My dwarfs started bringing up the various goods we had crafted in anticipation of trading with the elves.
Suddenly, goblins spring out and ambush the elves! I organize two squads, and send them out to fight off the goblins. Many of the elves, caught by surprise, are almost instantly slain. Only one of my dwarves, known as Iden Nitigmeng Olonthir Nentuk, a champion, is ready for battle. He rushes outside to combat the goblins, while the remaining elves run towards the safety of the fortress. One of them is butchered, but there are still two more. There are twelve goblins, who catch up to the elves just outside my walls. They engage in fierce fighting as Iden runs as fast as he can to reach them. By the time he gets there, all of the elves are dead. Furious with rage, Iden takes his hammer and blasts over half of the twelve goblins about twenty feet backwards (no joke). They never get back up. The other goblins try to run away, but Iden quickly destroys them.
I let the rest of my dwarves out of the fortress, and they quickly go to loot the bodies of both friend and foe. None of them seem particularly worried about the dead elves. Afterwards, one of my miners decides to throw a party.
Such is Dwarf Fortress.
Suddenly, goblins spring out and ambush the elves! I organize two squads, and send them out to fight off the goblins. Many of the elves, caught by surprise, are almost instantly slain. Only one of my dwarves, known as Iden Nitigmeng Olonthir Nentuk, a champion, is ready for battle. He rushes outside to combat the goblins, while the remaining elves run towards the safety of the fortress. One of them is butchered, but there are still two more. There are twelve goblins, who catch up to the elves just outside my walls. They engage in fierce fighting as Iden runs as fast as he can to reach them. By the time he gets there, all of the elves are dead. Furious with rage, Iden takes his hammer and blasts over half of the twelve goblins about twenty feet backwards (no joke). They never get back up. The other goblins try to run away, but Iden quickly destroys them.
I let the rest of my dwarves out of the fortress, and they quickly go to loot the bodies of both friend and foe. None of them seem particularly worried about the dead elves. Afterwards, one of my miners decides to throw a party.
Such is Dwarf Fortress.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Nonlinear Game I Want to Play
What's Wrong With Nonlinear Games?
I'm not a big fan of nonlinear games. Games like Grand Theft Auto, or Infamous. Most of them aren't really nonlinear, but just a series of linear quests, or missions, in an open world. You go do a quest, and each quest is very linear. Then you walk through an "open" world, which is basically just a series of random enemies, until you get to the next quest. This is a concept which showed up in the first Zelda! In Zelda, there's an open world, broken up by a series of linear dungeons. Yet nobody thought to call that a sandbox game, or a nonlinear game, because it wasn't. And that's totally fine. I still love Zelda. However, with newer games like Grand Theft Auto, and Infamous, they're basically the same thing. Except they're called missions and not dungeons, and sometimes you can do them in a slightly different order. The difference is that (in my opinion) the gameplay is boring at best. Often times, its downright horrible.
So how would I go about creating a nonlinear game? First thing: take out quests. They're not really helping anything. They're just linear gameplay events, and we want to eliminate linear gameplay. However, I wouldn't take out goals. Goals are there for a reason, so that players will want to get through the game. You can still have goals without quests, they just won't be goals like "kill ten bad guys", or "collect ten packages".
Nonlinear Gameplay
Most of the gameplay in these "nonlinear" games is actually very standard, and rather boring. We've been shooting random guys with a shotgun for years, and most "nonlinear" games don't do much to change this. Games have been able to implement nonlinear gameplay into a game for a long time. Metal Gear Solid let you approach a given situation in tons of different ways. You could be stealth, or use brute force. Be nonlethal or kill everyone you come across. Spelunky is another great example. There are a million things to do in that game, even though it has a very linear progression. You get past one stage, and then you move on to the next. The difference is that every stage is randomly generated, and each of the elements of the stages interact in different ways, giving you endless possibilities. A snake might seem like just a snake, but there are about a dozen ways you can go about trying to kill it or get past it. You can jump on it, Mario style. You can use your trusty whip. If you've bought/stole another weapon like a machete or a shotgun, you can use that. Or, you could use the environment to your advantage by luring it into some spikes, or into a arrow trap. This is just with a snake, which is probably the most boring thing you encounter in the game.
So why is it that these linear games like Metal Gear Solid and Spelunky pull off this whole nonlinear gameplay thing better then actual "nonlinear" games like Infamous? In my nonlinear game, I would start by adding just a few elements, and making all of these elements act together in different ways. If added something like a spiked pit, I would make it so you can interact with that spiked pit in as many ways as possible by making it so you could lure enemies into it, or place something over the spikes so they don't harm you. If you can imagine an entire open world with all of these different items in the environment which are able to act together in an infinite number of ways, I think you would have the basis for a truly nonlinear game.
Further Reading/Watching:
Is interactivity inimical to storytelling? (by Chris Crawford)
Rev Rant: True Nonlinearity
I'm not a big fan of nonlinear games. Games like Grand Theft Auto, or Infamous. Most of them aren't really nonlinear, but just a series of linear quests, or missions, in an open world. You go do a quest, and each quest is very linear. Then you walk through an "open" world, which is basically just a series of random enemies, until you get to the next quest. This is a concept which showed up in the first Zelda! In Zelda, there's an open world, broken up by a series of linear dungeons. Yet nobody thought to call that a sandbox game, or a nonlinear game, because it wasn't. And that's totally fine. I still love Zelda. However, with newer games like Grand Theft Auto, and Infamous, they're basically the same thing. Except they're called missions and not dungeons, and sometimes you can do them in a slightly different order. The difference is that (in my opinion) the gameplay is boring at best. Often times, its downright horrible.
So how would I go about creating a nonlinear game? First thing: take out quests. They're not really helping anything. They're just linear gameplay events, and we want to eliminate linear gameplay. However, I wouldn't take out goals. Goals are there for a reason, so that players will want to get through the game. You can still have goals without quests, they just won't be goals like "kill ten bad guys", or "collect ten packages".
Nonlinear Gameplay
Most of the gameplay in these "nonlinear" games is actually very standard, and rather boring. We've been shooting random guys with a shotgun for years, and most "nonlinear" games don't do much to change this. Games have been able to implement nonlinear gameplay into a game for a long time. Metal Gear Solid let you approach a given situation in tons of different ways. You could be stealth, or use brute force. Be nonlethal or kill everyone you come across. Spelunky is another great example. There are a million things to do in that game, even though it has a very linear progression. You get past one stage, and then you move on to the next. The difference is that every stage is randomly generated, and each of the elements of the stages interact in different ways, giving you endless possibilities. A snake might seem like just a snake, but there are about a dozen ways you can go about trying to kill it or get past it. You can jump on it, Mario style. You can use your trusty whip. If you've bought/stole another weapon like a machete or a shotgun, you can use that. Or, you could use the environment to your advantage by luring it into some spikes, or into a arrow trap. This is just with a snake, which is probably the most boring thing you encounter in the game.
So why is it that these linear games like Metal Gear Solid and Spelunky pull off this whole nonlinear gameplay thing better then actual "nonlinear" games like Infamous? In my nonlinear game, I would start by adding just a few elements, and making all of these elements act together in different ways. If added something like a spiked pit, I would make it so you can interact with that spiked pit in as many ways as possible by making it so you could lure enemies into it, or place something over the spikes so they don't harm you. If you can imagine an entire open world with all of these different items in the environment which are able to act together in an infinite number of ways, I think you would have the basis for a truly nonlinear game.
Further Reading/Watching:
Is interactivity inimical to storytelling? (by Chris Crawford)
Rev Rant: True Nonlinearity
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Game Developing Resolutions
As an indie developer, I have a lot of freedom in how I develop games. This freedom is both a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. One advantage is the ability to work whenever I want. The down side is that I do not get a whole lot done. I can make any kind of game I want, but my visions are often inconsistent and I usually stray from my original vision and become unsatisfied with what I am making. To focus my efforts and be more productive in my game making endeavors, I decided to make up a list of game developing resolutions/commandments (even though I missed New Years).
1.) You will turn off the internet when working. I find I am much more productive when the internet is off. If there are any tutorials or articles I need to reference, I can save them onto my computer.
2.) You will set up deadlines. The most productive I've ever been is probably while developing my game, Agent, for a competition. If I hadn't had the deadline forced upon me, it would have taken me ten times as long to get to the stage of development that I did.
3.) You will plan out what I will do before sitting down at the computer. All too often, I find myself far too unfocused when I am programming. I will add a chunk of code in one place, and then move somewhere else, and try changing something there. With more focused goals I hope to be more efficient in making my games.
4.) Spend more time in reality. I often am far too ambitious in my game visions. I won't stop too consider how long it will take to do the graphics for a particular area, or how I will program a certain interface. Being more realistic in my expectations will help me set better goals.
5.) Don't neglect your school work too work on games. This has gotten me in trouble more then a few times. I usually end up having to do my work at the last moment and doing a terrible job (although my teachers don't seem to notice).
And, finally:
6.) Stop writing on your stupid blog and make some games!
1.) You will turn off the internet when working. I find I am much more productive when the internet is off. If there are any tutorials or articles I need to reference, I can save them onto my computer.
2.) You will set up deadlines. The most productive I've ever been is probably while developing my game, Agent, for a competition. If I hadn't had the deadline forced upon me, it would have taken me ten times as long to get to the stage of development that I did.
3.) You will plan out what I will do before sitting down at the computer. All too often, I find myself far too unfocused when I am programming. I will add a chunk of code in one place, and then move somewhere else, and try changing something there. With more focused goals I hope to be more efficient in making my games.
4.) Spend more time in reality. I often am far too ambitious in my game visions. I won't stop too consider how long it will take to do the graphics for a particular area, or how I will program a certain interface. Being more realistic in my expectations will help me set better goals.
5.) Don't neglect your school work too work on games. This has gotten me in trouble more then a few times. I usually end up having to do my work at the last moment and doing a terrible job (although my teachers don't seem to notice).
And, finally:
6.) Stop writing on your stupid blog and make some games!
Monday, January 11, 2010
Morality
Morality in games is a topic which is often brought up in articles, blogs, and conversations. The ability to play a game however you want seems very appealing, but I find that I am almost never satisfied with the choices given to me. In Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, you can make many morale choices. Do you want to help the alien, or kill him? Give the beggar some money, or kill him? Kill Darth Malak, or... well I guess that's actually the only choice you have. My point is that many of these choices are rather black and white. In KOTOR you aren't given much reward for staying neutral and making each decision the way you think would be best. Instead, most people seem to decide if they want to be evil or good before they even start the game, and make all their decisions accordingly. In more recent games, I've heard that they are doing a better job of this kind of stuff.
However, this black and white approach to morale decisions isn't the only thing that bugs me about these games. Its also the fact that the gameplay doesn't seem to match up with your morale decisions. Often times, morale choices are made outside of the normal gameplay (like in a scene of dialog). In KOTOR, you can decide to be good, but to get through the game you will still have to kill dozens of people. There isn't really any way to be a total pacifist, which is rather unrealistic. The same is true of Mass Effect and Fallout 3.
Iji is an indie game which gave you the choice of killing everything you came across or avoiding them. However, this decision is rather unrealistic. The only way to be a pacifist is to try to run through all the levels dodging as many bullets as you can. Iji is a great game, but I found this aspect to be rather unrealistic.
There are some games which have this degree of morale choice in the gameplay: on example is the Metal Gear Solid series. These games weren't really focused on morale choice, but let you play through them without killing a single person (for the most part). This didn't involve running through the levels trying to dodge bullets, but allowed you to tranquilize people you came across without killing them.
Another game which did this well is Deus Ex, which also allowed you to use nonlethal weapons to knock out enemies. In fact, Deus Ex handled the whole moral choice thing very well. The choices weren't always black and white. In one pivotal moment in the game, you are ordered to kill the leader of the terrorist organization you have been fighting. However, you have reason to believe that the organization you are working for is corrupt, and that the terrorists may actually be the good guys. You can choose to follow orders and kill the terrorist, or you can go back to base without killing him. You can even disobey your orders and kill your superior. Now that's a morale decision.
However, this black and white approach to morale decisions isn't the only thing that bugs me about these games. Its also the fact that the gameplay doesn't seem to match up with your morale decisions. Often times, morale choices are made outside of the normal gameplay (like in a scene of dialog). In KOTOR, you can decide to be good, but to get through the game you will still have to kill dozens of people. There isn't really any way to be a total pacifist, which is rather unrealistic. The same is true of Mass Effect and Fallout 3.
Iji is an indie game which gave you the choice of killing everything you came across or avoiding them. However, this decision is rather unrealistic. The only way to be a pacifist is to try to run through all the levels dodging as many bullets as you can. Iji is a great game, but I found this aspect to be rather unrealistic.
There are some games which have this degree of morale choice in the gameplay: on example is the Metal Gear Solid series. These games weren't really focused on morale choice, but let you play through them without killing a single person (for the most part). This didn't involve running through the levels trying to dodge bullets, but allowed you to tranquilize people you came across without killing them.
Another game which did this well is Deus Ex, which also allowed you to use nonlethal weapons to knock out enemies. In fact, Deus Ex handled the whole moral choice thing very well. The choices weren't always black and white. In one pivotal moment in the game, you are ordered to kill the leader of the terrorist organization you have been fighting. However, you have reason to believe that the organization you are working for is corrupt, and that the terrorists may actually be the good guys. You can choose to follow orders and kill the terrorist, or you can go back to base without killing him. You can even disobey your orders and kill your superior. Now that's a morale decision.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Kindle
Recently, I got a Kindle. I'm not quite ready to abandon paper books, but I love the ability to read PDFs on it. I have a ton of PDFs on my computer which I don't want to read because reading on a computer is very tedious. However, its much easier on a Kindle because it doesn't strain your eyes anymore then reading a normal book does.
The other thing I like about it is the large amount of books which are either free, or less then two dollars. Most of these are classics, like the Iliad, and are still a lot of fun to read. Because of the free wireless, you can download one of these free books whenever and wherever you want, which is really cool. In a month or two, I'll probably have made up the up front cost of the Kindle by buying these cheap books.
The other thing I like about it is the large amount of books which are either free, or less then two dollars. Most of these are classics, like the Iliad, and are still a lot of fun to read. Because of the free wireless, you can download one of these free books whenever and wherever you want, which is really cool. In a month or two, I'll probably have made up the up front cost of the Kindle by buying these cheap books.
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Update!
Today I updated my website/blog so it was actually usable by me. Now I'll be able to post my random game developing geekery and rants without the annoying technical difficulties I had before. I will probably be updating the theme in the near future. I will also be making new posts much more frequently then I usually do, or at least that's the plan.
Anyway, I hope you like what you see, and that you'll check back soon to read about my crazy theories and game ideas.
Anyway, I hope you like what you see, and that you'll check back soon to read about my crazy theories and game ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)