Man, it's been forever. Sorry -.-
So I've been thinking about design and how it relates to good games. I've also been thinking on a very important concept:
What do you deserve when you play a game? This is entirely different depending on whether you are a novice, intermediate, or expert player. It's hard to juggle all of these things together, of course.
A novice player deserves a fun learning experience and easy to use game mechanics. I think this is very important. If novices don't grow in a game, they will put it down. For developers, that means a lot especially if their game has a subscription fee. For a community, it means the community has lost another hopeful contributor.
As experts, we sort of take the new player experience for granted. We almost always scoff at the tutorials for games once we've played through them our 2nd - 50th time through the game. Amusingly, many people who dislike the tutorial the most are the people who still haven't learned everything in it, but I digress.
I think the bare minimum for a game is that it has a fairly long (20-ish hours) and enjoyable campaign/story mode that should also serve as a tutorial for high level game concepts. There are very few examples of this. Of the examples that do exist, ALL of them are for single player games (Devil May Cry 4 is a pretty decent example even if the actual tutorial in the game is mediocre - the gameplay itself is a fairly excellent teacher of gameplay concepts). There are some good multiplayer game tutorials, such as Virtua Fighter 4/5's tutorial mode. However, these are strung together like boring lessons and aren't woven into an engaging campaign or story mode.
In fact, engaging multiplayer campaign/story modes are highly boring for the most part, and many (like WarCraft/StarCraft) actually teach you the wrong things. A decent example of a fun designed story mode might be Soul Calibur 3, and a decent example of a story mode that could have been fun is definitely Super Smash Brothers Brawl. When compared to these story modes, games like BlazBlue or Soul Calibur 4 or Street Fighter (any) just don't hold up.
Soul Calibur 2's adventure mode (called Weapon Master) was somewhat interesting as a tutorial, since it often forced you to defeat your enemy in different ways, including ring outs, juggle combos, and so on. Unfortunately, it didn't really go far enough and the result is that players didn't really learn optimal combos or setups for their character. Still, as far as multiplayer games go, it's pretty much all we've got.
You could call the entire level 1 to max level gameplay in a MMORPG the campaign/story mode, but the reality is that in most cases, players are forced into 'real gameplay' decisions long before they hit max level. In WoW for instance, the tutorial period is rightfully levels 1-10, and at level 10 they can head into WSG or the Arena and PvP for their first time, and go into their first instance shortly after that. In City of Heroes, there really is no endgame content and the 'tutorial mission' ends at level 2 (and without teaching the player much).
An ideal tutorial teaches players about as many pertinent gameplay elements as possible. Also, the gameplay needs to be structured that the mechanics are transparent and easy to grasp.
Although I've talked about simple vs. complex a million times, I'd like to illustrate why so many people play Soul Calibur. The game is easy to pick up. It is not a very good intermediate player's game, but at the beginner level it's easy to understand. Moving the stick in a direction makes you move in that direction, and it has three attack buttons and a guard button. Most of the moves a beginner would do are easy, direction + button affairs, or possibly direction + two buttons. Even at the expert level, the experts are doing these same moves, which helps transparency. Beginners don't often feel like they've been destroyed by experts, which is a big help for a good learning experience.
An intermediate player deserves an intuitive process in learning high level gameplay and positive feedback. Obviously, also, a game needs to be fun at this level.
The intermediate level is where the novice starts learning strategies and such, and the intermediate player usually thrashes novice players like rag dolls because the intermediate player can usually figure out something that beats a majority of low level button mashing. In order for the intermediate player to not get bored though, they've got to keep growing in their skills. They also need good competition, which means that in the case of online games and MMOs, intermediate players need good matchmaking.
Soul Calibur is absolutely horrid about teaching high level concepts to intermediate players. Frame traps, just frame timings on silly things (just ukemi?! what?) and extremely strict combo timing makes it hard to bridge the gap between beginner and expert. Nowhere in the tutorial does it show examples of "my turn, your turn" gameplay, mid-low-throw mixup, safe wakeups and other similar high level elements. This means that intermediate SC players often stay there and never become experts. Amusingly, this is possibly for the better, since most expert SC players claim that their game is less fun.
Other games vary. StarCraft is even harder, as is chess. In general, most competitive games are not really built for intermediate players. This means, as a new player, it's often hard to make the jump from intermediate to expert. This is why, in general, competitive communities tend to have a dearth of new expert players.
Expert players deserve a game with a wealth of viable options and lots of depth. Fun isn't as important anymore, as deep gameplay will generally create 'fun' for experts even if the core mechanics aren't all that fun.
For a look at 'wealth of viable options' I think Arcana Heart (and sequels) is probably one of the best examples to look at, with a reasonably sized cast and a lot of different magic spells to choose from. I think that the design is somewhat accidental, and the game itself is a little too hard.
I'd be a bit biased in this, but currently I think BlazBlue is one of the latest and best games to explore competitive depth. It's an expert's game to be sure, but it isn't really an intermediate or beginner's game even though it has a number of features to make it easier on those players.
The learning curve for most games is very strange, and not really representative of anything in real life.
I'm not sure how short hop is intuitive at all, Smash players.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Wind, Forest, Fire, Mountain
Swift like the wind, silent as the forest, fierce like the fire and immovable like the mountain. That's what you must be like!
Takeda Shingen said it, quoting Sun Tzu. And that's what we're gonna talk about today!
In competition there are certain ways tempo can go. I talked about it already so if you haven't read that article, that's a good place to finish. This article is more like the beginner lesson compared to that article, which is more advanced. It's a concept I've known about for ages, but at the same time never really put it into words.
The flow of time in a match can go back and forth, and typically starts pretty neutral. Some players are really good at fighting at different times. I'm really good at neutral play. Most good players are good on attack. It's pretty rare to find people who are defense experts, because it's a situation that is universally bad to be in. Being at disadvantage sucks - when most people play 'defensively' they are actually fighting in a neutral state and keeping the other player from going on offense.
Attacking is the most novice state to be in. Most people naturally attack constantly because attacking is the way to victory. It depends on the game of course, but unless you're playing a RTS the natural inclination is to attack. In an RTS, the natural inclination is to tech.
Attacking is a good place to be if you are actually on offense. If you can actually get offensive momentum, your opponent's options will be limited. It is hard to attack when your enemy has attacks in your face. All of your energy needs to be spent minimizing loss and getting out of a bad situation. As the attacker, you can dictate the pace of the match so it's important that you know some key things.
First, you have to know how to create opportunities for damage. You're fighting against someone who wants to get out of trouble so the first thing you need to know is how to bypass defense and cause some pain. Your end goal is causing damage that will hopefully lead to a win. If your opponent can defend all of your attack then you just wasted an opportunity.
Next, you need to know the gaps. No offense is foolproof. There's always a way to beat you. Make sure you know how. If your opponent has some tricky defense maneuver you need to know when they can use it - and how to beat it. That way when a gap opens up, you can punish them for trying to escape and continue your offense.
Lastly, you need to know how to milk an opportunity. If you start a fire in their base you gotta know how to keep it burning. If you get a few zerglings into their base you gotta know how to use surround to kill their workers as they flee. If you land a standing jab you gotta know how to follow up for maximum hurt.
But most important is that you have to know when to go on offense at all. And that brings us to what I do best - fight at a neutral state.
Neutral situations are tricky. There is no hard and fast rule for them because in many games they end abruptly with someone getting an advantage. Most importantly, both players have many options available to them. This is very tricky because you never know whether your opponent is going to play safely or aggressively.
A neutral state is generally characterized by neither player being in "effective" threatening range. In a FPS that might be where both teams haven't made contact yet, or aren't sure where the other team is. In a fighting game it's typically a matter of distance, where either player is just outside the range where most of their fast, hard to predict moves can hit. In RTS it's when both armies aren't engaging.
At this distance, the best option for an aggressive player is to safely test the water and try to get your opponent to make a mistake. If you can find a gap in their defense, move in and take it. However, trying to attack predictably will get you countered.
One thing that advanced players try to do is stick attacks out just outside of range. This way, if the opponent moves in just a little bit or makes an attack of their own, your attack will hit theirs. In StarCraft, this is typically the start of a "contain" offense - using threatening attacks from a strong defensible position to limit the enemy from attacking.
If the opponent is using this tactic against you, you can wait for them to stick out a slow attack before you move in. If you do this though, make sure you move in using the fastest method possible. This typically means rushing in with a dash, instant air dash, or an attack that moves you forward. If you move in too slowly (eg. jumping in or walking) the opponent will usually have a LOT of time to hit you while you close in. Even if you do this as fast as possible, you may get countered if you are too predictable. Be very careful!
A defensive player like me can also space themselves out and use hard to defeat moves at long range in order to create an unapproachable wall. This is a good strategy if used right. If you happen to put the opponent on the defense by blocking your attack or getting hit, move in and go on offense - don't throw away an advantage when your opponent is on the defensive already!
As I mentioned in The Book of Nothing not attacking at all can be very powerful at these times. Nothing is best when neither player has an advantage and not too good otherwise. If they attack at you, and you're doing nothing, you can react quickly and defeat it.
One thing I didn't mention in that article is that there are certain times when an attack is MOST likely. If your opponent is just recovering from an attack he is most likely to come back to hit you as soon as he can. If your opponent has just defended he is most likely to lash out at you. Learn to predict what your opponent will do and your battle will become incredibly easy.
On defense is troubling. When your opponent is attacking and has the advantage it is tough to find a way out.
First is to find the gaps in the offense. I mentioned this for the attacker - if you don't know how to get out, an offense can seem unbreakable. Find the gaps and learn how you can fight out.
Once you know that - it's a guessing game. Sometimes you can use a gap to counter your opponent and go on offense, which is great. Sometimes you can't and you just need to escape. Countering your opponent can give great rewards, but almost always you're at risk if you fail.
On the other hand, escaping might also be risky so don't jump the gun either way. Take an opportunity if you have it... but beware, a smart attacker might read you and try to counter. Take the next step, and expect the counter.
And the next step is to expect him not to counter - then you can just escape.
It's a mindgame!
Hopefully that helped. This took me days to write, guys. Seriously.
Takeda Shingen said it, quoting Sun Tzu. And that's what we're gonna talk about today!
In competition there are certain ways tempo can go. I talked about it already so if you haven't read that article, that's a good place to finish. This article is more like the beginner lesson compared to that article, which is more advanced. It's a concept I've known about for ages, but at the same time never really put it into words.
The flow of time in a match can go back and forth, and typically starts pretty neutral. Some players are really good at fighting at different times. I'm really good at neutral play. Most good players are good on attack. It's pretty rare to find people who are defense experts, because it's a situation that is universally bad to be in. Being at disadvantage sucks - when most people play 'defensively' they are actually fighting in a neutral state and keeping the other player from going on offense.
Attacking is the most novice state to be in. Most people naturally attack constantly because attacking is the way to victory. It depends on the game of course, but unless you're playing a RTS the natural inclination is to attack. In an RTS, the natural inclination is to tech.
Attacking is a good place to be if you are actually on offense. If you can actually get offensive momentum, your opponent's options will be limited. It is hard to attack when your enemy has attacks in your face. All of your energy needs to be spent minimizing loss and getting out of a bad situation. As the attacker, you can dictate the pace of the match so it's important that you know some key things.
First, you have to know how to create opportunities for damage. You're fighting against someone who wants to get out of trouble so the first thing you need to know is how to bypass defense and cause some pain. Your end goal is causing damage that will hopefully lead to a win. If your opponent can defend all of your attack then you just wasted an opportunity.
Next, you need to know the gaps. No offense is foolproof. There's always a way to beat you. Make sure you know how. If your opponent has some tricky defense maneuver you need to know when they can use it - and how to beat it. That way when a gap opens up, you can punish them for trying to escape and continue your offense.
Lastly, you need to know how to milk an opportunity. If you start a fire in their base you gotta know how to keep it burning. If you get a few zerglings into their base you gotta know how to use surround to kill their workers as they flee. If you land a standing jab you gotta know how to follow up for maximum hurt.
But most important is that you have to know when to go on offense at all. And that brings us to what I do best - fight at a neutral state.
Neutral situations are tricky. There is no hard and fast rule for them because in many games they end abruptly with someone getting an advantage. Most importantly, both players have many options available to them. This is very tricky because you never know whether your opponent is going to play safely or aggressively.
A neutral state is generally characterized by neither player being in "effective" threatening range. In a FPS that might be where both teams haven't made contact yet, or aren't sure where the other team is. In a fighting game it's typically a matter of distance, where either player is just outside the range where most of their fast, hard to predict moves can hit. In RTS it's when both armies aren't engaging.
At this distance, the best option for an aggressive player is to safely test the water and try to get your opponent to make a mistake. If you can find a gap in their defense, move in and take it. However, trying to attack predictably will get you countered.
One thing that advanced players try to do is stick attacks out just outside of range. This way, if the opponent moves in just a little bit or makes an attack of their own, your attack will hit theirs. In StarCraft, this is typically the start of a "contain" offense - using threatening attacks from a strong defensible position to limit the enemy from attacking.
If the opponent is using this tactic against you, you can wait for them to stick out a slow attack before you move in. If you do this though, make sure you move in using the fastest method possible. This typically means rushing in with a dash, instant air dash, or an attack that moves you forward. If you move in too slowly (eg. jumping in or walking) the opponent will usually have a LOT of time to hit you while you close in. Even if you do this as fast as possible, you may get countered if you are too predictable. Be very careful!
A defensive player like me can also space themselves out and use hard to defeat moves at long range in order to create an unapproachable wall. This is a good strategy if used right. If you happen to put the opponent on the defense by blocking your attack or getting hit, move in and go on offense - don't throw away an advantage when your opponent is on the defensive already!
As I mentioned in The Book of Nothing not attacking at all can be very powerful at these times. Nothing is best when neither player has an advantage and not too good otherwise. If they attack at you, and you're doing nothing, you can react quickly and defeat it.
One thing I didn't mention in that article is that there are certain times when an attack is MOST likely. If your opponent is just recovering from an attack he is most likely to come back to hit you as soon as he can. If your opponent has just defended he is most likely to lash out at you. Learn to predict what your opponent will do and your battle will become incredibly easy.
On defense is troubling. When your opponent is attacking and has the advantage it is tough to find a way out.
First is to find the gaps in the offense. I mentioned this for the attacker - if you don't know how to get out, an offense can seem unbreakable. Find the gaps and learn how you can fight out.
Once you know that - it's a guessing game. Sometimes you can use a gap to counter your opponent and go on offense, which is great. Sometimes you can't and you just need to escape. Countering your opponent can give great rewards, but almost always you're at risk if you fail.
On the other hand, escaping might also be risky so don't jump the gun either way. Take an opportunity if you have it... but beware, a smart attacker might read you and try to counter. Take the next step, and expect the counter.
And the next step is to expect him not to counter - then you can just escape.
It's a mindgame!
Hopefully that helped. This took me days to write, guys. Seriously.
MMO Hub - Elitism article
Just as a heads up, I wrote an article on MMOhub.org and it's up already. I have a 3-part series already emailed to them, so stay tuned for that. Leave comments?
I'll probably write some more stuff this month for them but I have no idea what their publishing schedule is going to be. They output a pretty impressive amount of content every month though.
Also, as a side note today I'm going to be doing a little bit of housekeeping on my previous articles, mainly adding outside links and stuff. I might have a new article today hopefully.
I'll probably write some more stuff this month for them but I have no idea what their publishing schedule is going to be. They output a pretty impressive amount of content every month though.
Also, as a side note today I'm going to be doing a little bit of housekeeping on my previous articles, mainly adding outside links and stuff. I might have a new article today hopefully.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Really. Winning Isn't Everything.
A suggestion was made to me to write an article on how to lose. I kind of suggested that I'd already written articles about that, but I went and looked over them and there wasn't a whole lot about not being a sore loser and turning losses into learning experiences.
I sort of take that attitude for granted. Generally I kind of take it as a given that when you play in competition, you take losses for what they were, look at your mistakes and improve. Clearly that's a problem because most people don't have that same view. Like most things here, I feel like what I'm about to say is obvious, but maybe it's just because I've had the view for so long.
Losing affects all of us. Not winning at all is frustrating. I've said before that teaching people involves positive feedback, but losing is negative feedback. The problem with that is that having losses are extremely common in the early stages of playing a game, and only after you improve a lot are you able to come back and start actually winning.
When I lose frequently I tend to get lethargic and lose interest, since it is hard to develop skills based on negative feedback. We work much better in a world of positive feedback. We like to be rewarded for doing good things, not punished for failing to do them.
Unfortunately this means that when we lose in competition, it upsets us. We aren't able to think clearly and often blame other things for our losses. We really can blame just about anything for losing. I've seen people blame stress the day before, their lack of food, the opponent playing 'cheesy', or any number of other things. Some of these factors might have contributed but all of them put the blame out of your hands and none of them provide useful feedback for improvement.
The first thing we should do to prevent losses from being an issue is to avoid external factors that would hamper us from winning in the first place. If we can't blame being hungry, tired or drunk we are more likely to look at the specific match factors that caused us to lose.
Even if we are hungry or tired or got beat by cheap moves, we need to analyze this. What moves did they use? Why did I lose to them? Was I being predictable? What was going on in my head when I did this or that or that? Where did I make mistakes, and what happened?
You absolutely need to do this whether you win or lose. It's just way harder when you lose.
Emotionally, losing is very damaging to us. Negative feedback puts us on the defensive very quickly and upsets us. Losing feels like a personal attack. Even if there's some handshakes and good sportsmanship by the enemy, it's hard not to feel bad.
Don't feel bad when you lose. If you lose, it means you had the opportunity to learn so soak up as much info as you can. If you just get hurt over losing, you're not going to be able to learn from your mistakes.
Don't feel bad when people give you criticism on your play. If they say "oh you should mix up your attacks more" or "you're being too predictable" then you should take that to heart. Not all advice is right of course, but you should at least take suggestions to heart.
The bottom line is that we should always play to learn, win or lose. Don't get down when you lose. If you can, talk to the person who beat you and ask them for help in bettering your game.
I sort of take that attitude for granted. Generally I kind of take it as a given that when you play in competition, you take losses for what they were, look at your mistakes and improve. Clearly that's a problem because most people don't have that same view. Like most things here, I feel like what I'm about to say is obvious, but maybe it's just because I've had the view for so long.
Losing affects all of us. Not winning at all is frustrating. I've said before that teaching people involves positive feedback, but losing is negative feedback. The problem with that is that having losses are extremely common in the early stages of playing a game, and only after you improve a lot are you able to come back and start actually winning.
When I lose frequently I tend to get lethargic and lose interest, since it is hard to develop skills based on negative feedback. We work much better in a world of positive feedback. We like to be rewarded for doing good things, not punished for failing to do them.
Unfortunately this means that when we lose in competition, it upsets us. We aren't able to think clearly and often blame other things for our losses. We really can blame just about anything for losing. I've seen people blame stress the day before, their lack of food, the opponent playing 'cheesy', or any number of other things. Some of these factors might have contributed but all of them put the blame out of your hands and none of them provide useful feedback for improvement.
The first thing we should do to prevent losses from being an issue is to avoid external factors that would hamper us from winning in the first place. If we can't blame being hungry, tired or drunk we are more likely to look at the specific match factors that caused us to lose.
Even if we are hungry or tired or got beat by cheap moves, we need to analyze this. What moves did they use? Why did I lose to them? Was I being predictable? What was going on in my head when I did this or that or that? Where did I make mistakes, and what happened?
You absolutely need to do this whether you win or lose. It's just way harder when you lose.
Emotionally, losing is very damaging to us. Negative feedback puts us on the defensive very quickly and upsets us. Losing feels like a personal attack. Even if there's some handshakes and good sportsmanship by the enemy, it's hard not to feel bad.
Don't feel bad when you lose. If you lose, it means you had the opportunity to learn so soak up as much info as you can. If you just get hurt over losing, you're not going to be able to learn from your mistakes.
Don't feel bad when people give you criticism on your play. If they say "oh you should mix up your attacks more" or "you're being too predictable" then you should take that to heart. Not all advice is right of course, but you should at least take suggestions to heart.
The bottom line is that we should always play to learn, win or lose. Don't get down when you lose. If you can, talk to the person who beat you and ask them for help in bettering your game.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Gaming is Too Hard, I'll Watch Instead
So a looong hiatus from writing here I have made. The reason is partly because I'm in the process of writing articles now for MMOhub.org but it's also largely due to writer's block. I was given a few ideas that I had no idea how to implement well. This idea came to me in a dream last night. Either way, the MMO Hub writing thing will hopefully be awesome. I really like their site presentation and they are pretty cool people to work with.
Today, I'll be talking about gameplay videos. BlazBlue is out (sort of) and I've been watching match videos to get a feel for the game. I don't own it yet, but I've played the arcade version a little bit. It's fun and interesting, but I can't really make a judgment on it until I've played it at the intermediate level at least.
Gameplay videos are our way of learning to play a game without actually playing it. Sometimes the videos are really useful tutorials that show us exactly what we need to do in a game. Other times, the videos are artistic exhibitions that don't really show practical things, but instead demonstrate the limits of what you can do in a game.
I won't be talking much about artistic videos, though.
When we watch videos with the intent of learning things, we need to be aware of what it is we're actually trying to pick up. Tutorial videos are pretty simple to figure out, unless they are in a language we don't know. Even then, it's pretty easy to guess what people are doing and why they are doing it. A tutorial isn't as good as someone there to explain how to do things, but really, it's the next best thing.
Match footage is going to be the real focus of this article. When we watch a competition match we aren't always sure of what we are going to learn from it. We can watch matches of particular characters or matchups, or just big videos of good players (such as tournament finals and so on). These teach us different things depending on what we are looking for.
When we go to watch matches, we generally have something we want to learn from them. If we're having trouble in a particular situation, we might watch matches to see others replicate that situation.
A good example to use might be StarCraft (surprise!) because a lot of the time, the matches have commentary and that helps us better understand what's going on and the decisions we need to make in that game. The commentary isn't always right, but it helps show us noobs (or you pros!) what is going on at least.
StarCraft matches are unique because there are only 3 races, but the map selection means that each matchup on each map must be handled in a different way. Add the commentary to the mix and we can see a lot of ways to play your particular race on any given map.
In addition to seeing strategies, you can see little nuance tricks and strategies. In fighting games, this type of learning is somewhat essential if you are not a training mode god who can figure out combos easily. Even if you are, learning combos and tricks from pros expedites your learning. Even better is that you can see what pros use that is practical, that might not be what you'd learn from a guide or FAQ.
Nuance is very important. If you see that you can do a particular trick such as instant blocking/parrying a particular attack and then get some free damage, that's valuable knowledge. If in StarCraft you see how to sneak a worker through a building or mineral patch using mining mode, that's great info that you can use in future matches.
Nitpicky details are the things we learn best from videos. We don't really learn strategies well, even with commentary. It's difficult for us to see "why are they not doing anything" even if the opponent leaves themself open just a little later, or if they don't fight back against a powerful rush and end up losing. We can't put ourself in the mind of the player and ask why, which is the important part of learning strategy.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you need to try as best you can to ask yourself why people chose to do something instead of something else. Sometime these decisions are obvious and other times they are not. The important thing is that we put our critical thinking skills to the test and learn as much as we can.
The last type of video are artsy videos. Most of these are promotional videos to hype a product, but there are also combo videos, freestyle dance videos (for DDR) and other similar videos that have nothing to do with 'real gameplay' for a game. Some of these are useful even still.
Combo videos and similar types of videos that show intricate, detailed gameplay are the best. While I include highlight reel videos in this grouping, highlights are generally not as 'artsy' as combo videos tend to be. We can learn a lot about a game's mechanics by watching people do combos, because the combo mechanics reveal a lot about what each character is capable of doing. That's pretty useful information.
Anyway, this is a whole lot nicer than reading Seth Killian's article on video watching, but I am going to make the same point that he did:
When you watch a video, think about what the person is doing, and why - and you'll get the most out of it.
Today, I'll be talking about gameplay videos. BlazBlue is out (sort of) and I've been watching match videos to get a feel for the game. I don't own it yet, but I've played the arcade version a little bit. It's fun and interesting, but I can't really make a judgment on it until I've played it at the intermediate level at least.
Gameplay videos are our way of learning to play a game without actually playing it. Sometimes the videos are really useful tutorials that show us exactly what we need to do in a game. Other times, the videos are artistic exhibitions that don't really show practical things, but instead demonstrate the limits of what you can do in a game.
I won't be talking much about artistic videos, though.
When we watch videos with the intent of learning things, we need to be aware of what it is we're actually trying to pick up. Tutorial videos are pretty simple to figure out, unless they are in a language we don't know. Even then, it's pretty easy to guess what people are doing and why they are doing it. A tutorial isn't as good as someone there to explain how to do things, but really, it's the next best thing.
Match footage is going to be the real focus of this article. When we watch a competition match we aren't always sure of what we are going to learn from it. We can watch matches of particular characters or matchups, or just big videos of good players (such as tournament finals and so on). These teach us different things depending on what we are looking for.
When we go to watch matches, we generally have something we want to learn from them. If we're having trouble in a particular situation, we might watch matches to see others replicate that situation.
A good example to use might be StarCraft (surprise!) because a lot of the time, the matches have commentary and that helps us better understand what's going on and the decisions we need to make in that game. The commentary isn't always right, but it helps show us noobs (or you pros!) what is going on at least.
StarCraft matches are unique because there are only 3 races, but the map selection means that each matchup on each map must be handled in a different way. Add the commentary to the mix and we can see a lot of ways to play your particular race on any given map.
In addition to seeing strategies, you can see little nuance tricks and strategies. In fighting games, this type of learning is somewhat essential if you are not a training mode god who can figure out combos easily. Even if you are, learning combos and tricks from pros expedites your learning. Even better is that you can see what pros use that is practical, that might not be what you'd learn from a guide or FAQ.
Nuance is very important. If you see that you can do a particular trick such as instant blocking/parrying a particular attack and then get some free damage, that's valuable knowledge. If in StarCraft you see how to sneak a worker through a building or mineral patch using mining mode, that's great info that you can use in future matches.
Nitpicky details are the things we learn best from videos. We don't really learn strategies well, even with commentary. It's difficult for us to see "why are they not doing anything" even if the opponent leaves themself open just a little later, or if they don't fight back against a powerful rush and end up losing. We can't put ourself in the mind of the player and ask why, which is the important part of learning strategy.
The point I'm trying to make here is that you need to try as best you can to ask yourself why people chose to do something instead of something else. Sometime these decisions are obvious and other times they are not. The important thing is that we put our critical thinking skills to the test and learn as much as we can.
The last type of video are artsy videos. Most of these are promotional videos to hype a product, but there are also combo videos, freestyle dance videos (for DDR) and other similar videos that have nothing to do with 'real gameplay' for a game. Some of these are useful even still.
Combo videos and similar types of videos that show intricate, detailed gameplay are the best. While I include highlight reel videos in this grouping, highlights are generally not as 'artsy' as combo videos tend to be. We can learn a lot about a game's mechanics by watching people do combos, because the combo mechanics reveal a lot about what each character is capable of doing. That's pretty useful information.
Anyway, this is a whole lot nicer than reading Seth Killian's article on video watching, but I am going to make the same point that he did:
When you watch a video, think about what the person is doing, and why - and you'll get the most out of it.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
We Desire a False Salvation
This is an overly scientific, but highly useful post for everyone whether or not you are a nerd. If you are a totally non-nerdy person this post carries a lot of weight. Nerds may know some of this just on instinct, but a lot of nerdy people find this concept hard to understand due to our high emphasis on personal achievements.
Hopefully this makes up for no post on Sunday.
This post is about being happier and worrying less. Most of us want to be happier, and we work towards things that make us happy. The unfortunate and obvious thing I'm going to tell everyone is that most of this effort is wasted because most of the things we want don't make us happy.
Admittedly there are things that do. Most notably, healthy relationships and a better diet help make us happy. When I say better diet I generally mean a high fiber/good quality meals where you still eat a good amount of food. Healthy relationships means good friendships and romantic relationships that are actually beneficial. If you constantly argue with your SO or fight with your friends, those are not healthy relationships. Most friendships are pretty healthy though. People in good romantic relationships pretty much totally get a pass on happiness.
Almost everything else in life doesn't make us happy. When we lust for a better job, more money, better cars or a better house, what we don't realize is that those things don't make us happy. In general, those things tend to make us less happy. The reasoning behind this is that when we want lots of things, not having them tends to make us less satisfied with what we already have. While we may eventually get more money or a shiny car, it doesn't typically satisfy us and we want more. This creates a sort of unhappy downward spiral that is hard to avoid.
The scientific community has made some discoveries in the past. Most notably a dude named Dan Gilbert (I'll link to his book eventually >.<) did some research on people in bad situations and how happy they were. His findings were pretty noteworthy. He found that people in bad situations tended to be about as happy on the average as people in very good situations. Normally finding no correlation is not a big deal, but having no correlation between having fast cars and happiness is a big deal. Finding no correlation between being crippled by a car accident and unhappiness is also a big deal.
There's some other research and it is pretty nerdy stuff about brain activity and things like that, but honestly it's no more 'proof' than the things we can easily observe. Our brains quickly respond to negative situations with chemicals that 'numb the pain' so to speak. This is why when people go through difficult life experiences, they often think that it was for the better.
I'm going to steal more research and mention things like people who 'almost made it big.' There are a number of people who could have become rich - become co-owners in Microsoft, played music for a number of popular bands, or patented the telephone, but didn't. A surprising number of these people (most that I heard) claim that they are more happy now than they would have been had they 'made it big.' While we can probably dispute that they may have enjoyed being successful more than they think, these people don't regret the choices they've made. That's quite surprising, really.
I can go into some personal experience here. The first mention is that I've met a few millionaires in my time. All of the ones I knew personally were unhappy. One wealthy family I know is perpetually unhappy and at odds with their non-rich family members. Every time I see them interacting with others, it's in an angry and condescending way. I knew another millionaire personally, and their story is much too sad to tell.
On the other hand, I know this guy who almost made it big. It's me! I was a pretty wealthy guy at one point in my life, almost pushing a million dollars. I ended up going through a lot of legal trouble due to some poor business decisions and got my money sued out of me. Eventually I settled but I really didn't have much money left to keep going. Still, I'm really happy I went through the experience overall, and I wouldn't change that I did (may have changed a few decisions I made, but oh well).
Elaborating more on that, I'm a pretty happy person - probably way happier than the average person is. I smile all the time. I have a very happy life. I have troubles like anyone else, but in spite of these things, I enjoy my time spent living.
I know other people that are not very well-off. I have a friend who was crippled in a skateboarding accident (paralyzed from waist down). He is an extremely happy guy. I don't feel sorry for him at all because I feel that'd be doing him a disservice. He's not in any sort of misery. I'm happy that he's able to live his life to the fullest.
So the secret is to get in bad life situations to become happy? Nah, not really.
The secret is to not stress over stuff in life. It's that stress that makes us unhappy. The little things in life aren't that big, even if by little I mean missing out on the chance to make billions of dollars. I own a disturbing number of business strategy books, and all the good ones suggest that you can't be successful without balancing your life. You need to invest time with friends, family, and just casual pleasure (like video games!) or you'll burn out.
Hopefully this makes up for no post on Sunday.
This post is about being happier and worrying less. Most of us want to be happier, and we work towards things that make us happy. The unfortunate and obvious thing I'm going to tell everyone is that most of this effort is wasted because most of the things we want don't make us happy.
Admittedly there are things that do. Most notably, healthy relationships and a better diet help make us happy. When I say better diet I generally mean a high fiber/good quality meals where you still eat a good amount of food. Healthy relationships means good friendships and romantic relationships that are actually beneficial. If you constantly argue with your SO or fight with your friends, those are not healthy relationships. Most friendships are pretty healthy though. People in good romantic relationships pretty much totally get a pass on happiness.
Almost everything else in life doesn't make us happy. When we lust for a better job, more money, better cars or a better house, what we don't realize is that those things don't make us happy. In general, those things tend to make us less happy. The reasoning behind this is that when we want lots of things, not having them tends to make us less satisfied with what we already have. While we may eventually get more money or a shiny car, it doesn't typically satisfy us and we want more. This creates a sort of unhappy downward spiral that is hard to avoid.
The scientific community has made some discoveries in the past. Most notably a dude named Dan Gilbert (I'll link to his book eventually >.<) did some research on people in bad situations and how happy they were. His findings were pretty noteworthy. He found that people in bad situations tended to be about as happy on the average as people in very good situations. Normally finding no correlation is not a big deal, but having no correlation between having fast cars and happiness is a big deal. Finding no correlation between being crippled by a car accident and unhappiness is also a big deal.
There's some other research and it is pretty nerdy stuff about brain activity and things like that, but honestly it's no more 'proof' than the things we can easily observe. Our brains quickly respond to negative situations with chemicals that 'numb the pain' so to speak. This is why when people go through difficult life experiences, they often think that it was for the better.
I'm going to steal more research and mention things like people who 'almost made it big.' There are a number of people who could have become rich - become co-owners in Microsoft, played music for a number of popular bands, or patented the telephone, but didn't. A surprising number of these people (most that I heard) claim that they are more happy now than they would have been had they 'made it big.' While we can probably dispute that they may have enjoyed being successful more than they think, these people don't regret the choices they've made. That's quite surprising, really.
I can go into some personal experience here. The first mention is that I've met a few millionaires in my time. All of the ones I knew personally were unhappy. One wealthy family I know is perpetually unhappy and at odds with their non-rich family members. Every time I see them interacting with others, it's in an angry and condescending way. I knew another millionaire personally, and their story is much too sad to tell.
On the other hand, I know this guy who almost made it big. It's me! I was a pretty wealthy guy at one point in my life, almost pushing a million dollars. I ended up going through a lot of legal trouble due to some poor business decisions and got my money sued out of me. Eventually I settled but I really didn't have much money left to keep going. Still, I'm really happy I went through the experience overall, and I wouldn't change that I did (may have changed a few decisions I made, but oh well).
Elaborating more on that, I'm a pretty happy person - probably way happier than the average person is. I smile all the time. I have a very happy life. I have troubles like anyone else, but in spite of these things, I enjoy my time spent living.
I know other people that are not very well-off. I have a friend who was crippled in a skateboarding accident (paralyzed from waist down). He is an extremely happy guy. I don't feel sorry for him at all because I feel that'd be doing him a disservice. He's not in any sort of misery. I'm happy that he's able to live his life to the fullest.
So the secret is to get in bad life situations to become happy? Nah, not really.
The secret is to not stress over stuff in life. It's that stress that makes us unhappy. The little things in life aren't that big, even if by little I mean missing out on the chance to make billions of dollars. I own a disturbing number of business strategy books, and all the good ones suggest that you can't be successful without balancing your life. You need to invest time with friends, family, and just casual pleasure (like video games!) or you'll burn out.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Screw the Rules, I Have Good Design
This is a super nerdy article totally focused on making games. I've been irritated lately by things that follow this mold, so it's only natural that I mention it. If you're not a super nerd planning on making your own game someday, you can probably skip this. It has some value for GMing though, since a lot of GMs make house rules.
One of the thing that annoys me in game design is when people insist on making things a certain way because they need to conform to existing, previous design decisions.
I don't quite think I can explain this very well, so I'll use an example to illustrate.
Waaaay back in the 90s there was this popular fighting game called Mortal Kombat. A lot of you guys have probably heard of it! The characters in MK were very similar. They all had the same normal moves with the same hitboxes, and they all had the same number of special moves. One characters had an exception (Johnny Cage's groin punch). This game was really, really not that fun design. Most of it was about playing the best character (probably Sub-Zero; Scorpion had an anti-projectile teleport though, making it not so clear-cut) who had slightly better versions of the same watered-down moves.
Mortal Kombat never really strayed from this design much. Characters continued to have very similar basic attacks and fairly similar special moves. Although different characters became the best, it was still clearly in favor of characters that had broken gameplay elements or slightly better versions of the same boring special moves.
By contrast, around the same time, there was Street Fighter 2: Championship Edition (CE for short). CE was an older, more busted/abusive version of SF compared to the newer versions of the game (HF, Super SF2, ST, and HDR) but it was much more refined than Street Fighter 2. The moves in CE were very different from each other. Ken's low medium kick was vastly different than Sagat's in both reach, power, and utility. Projectiles in the game fired at varying speeds, recovered at different times, and had very different amounts of hit stun and damage. Special moves had radically different properties as a whole - Bison's torpedo (psycho crusher) behaved much differently than Honda's torpedo (sumo headbutt) despite being similar moves.
SF2 would definitely be the harder game to balance. It's had a lot of iterations whereas each Mortal Kombat game, with the exception of 3, has had only one (3 had a version called Ultimate Mortal Kombat, with a lot of new characters and the same basic gameplay). While MK was never really ever balanced at all (MK vs. DC sure isn't) it would have taken the developers much more effort. Why didn't they?
The problem really is rules. Moves in the old MK universe (not sure if this is entirely true but I suspect it still is) follow a certain design guideline. Moves deal x amount of damage if they're a certain kind of hit, and put you in a certain type of stun. Moves that knock you up or down or launch you around all launch you in a certain way. Rather than fine-tune these values, the MK designers set up a bunch of guidelines for how they'd make abilities, and just sat down and made a bunch of skills and threw them into the game. This is from what I have seen still the case even in the more recent MK games, although there's a lot more types of attack now so there is more diversity.
This isn't really for fighting game design though. It's far more of a pen and paper or MMORPG type of design. D&D 4th suffers from it a little bit, and Returners FFRPG has a lot of it there. These systems are good uses of rules to create lots of cool things, but Returners in particular is kind of bad about having not enough flexibility (particularly in the equipment area).
There's another type of design that totally throws rules out the window. In fact, this is pretty much the entire design behind SF2CE and most SF games in general. This design says, design a lot of broken stuff, make your characters really unique, and hand the broken stuff out, a few to each character. This is also the method WoW uses, notably. After you've totally thrown your game on its head you can then adjust things.
Most games use this method, and it is also bad. The main reason it is bad is that you can very easily create metagame shifts - if you give some class something you don't think is that bad and it then becomes overpowered, many people will switch to playing that class and abusing the tactic you gave them. Even worse, when you fix the imbalance (nerf it!) people get pissed.
The only way this design strategy is even sort of good is if your players can easily adjust to changes. A good example of doing this is Guild Wars. When skills get changed, GW players can easily change out their skills for different ones and there are numerous quality build options for any given class in both PvE and PvP.
A bad example of this is World of Warcraft. Classes are forced to take skills (or be less effective) so nerfing them is generally bad stuff. For instance, if one were to nerf a rogue's crippling poison so that it was less effective, the rogue could not change that ability out. While there is some ability to change talents, any change to a class can resonate strongly. Also, talent changes cost the player valuable gold and are quite expensive, especially for lower level players who are more likely to make mistakes.
A really bad example of this is Ragnarok Online. In RO, if you mess up your character's build with an errant misclick, it costs you real money to fix. Prior to the introduction of the cash shop, which lets you spend real money for things in the game, you could not fix these errors at all. One misclick meant you'd need to delete your character and make a new one. If the developers ever change the way the game is played by altering skills or adding new equipment that forces you to re-stat your character, you have to pay real money to fix the problem or delete your character.
The moral of this story is really to never play RO.
So there's a third way to design, and it involves rules but only sort of. It's way harder to start but way easier to balance. That method is using a design skeleton. It's a made-up-ish term and I feel sort of nerdy using it. Oh well.
What I mean by design skeleton is that you take a base character and give him some things he can do no matter what. This stuff should be common to everyone - some classes or characters might not have these traits in favor of powerful other tricks but the basic character skeleton is shared by all characters as a default.
To illustrate this somewhat I'm going to bring up a game that no one actually played, Tabula Rasa. In TR every character could use a ranged weapon with a certain base amount of skill, so everyone could defend themselves. They could also melee with their ranged weapon too. These abilities were NOT sub-standard. I made a support character (healer type) and I had a significant number of weapon switches, including shotguns and rifles. I did not even use my class specific weapon and instead relied on basic guns as backup to my class powers.
Even better in my opinion is that every class in that game had some access to self heals in the form of repair kits and modules to repair damaged armor. The healer classes were way better at it and could do many things like area effect repairs and large single target repairs, but everyone could recover from lots of damage if they took cover and used repair kits.
This did not exclude my healer class or the combat classes. My friends played assault classes, and I was able to greatly aid them with my repair packs and 'magic' spells, which were better than the assault characters' repairs and magic, and let them focus on shooting things with their assault class guns. Still, there were times when my repair kits weren't needed and my mana was low, and I happily pulled out my rifle or shotgun and did some blasty.
This design is absolutely awesome. I especially liked the fact that assault characters could aid themselves if I couldn't get to them, either due to reloading (med/armor/shield packs took a long time to reload, so if you ran out of uses in the pack you'd have to wait a few seconds) or because I wasn't close enough. The main failings of TR was a bad beta filled with bugs (which led to bad PR), and characters that weren't unique enough. The end game classes were really sexy, though.
With a game design like TR's where baseline characters are able to function, you have more wiggle room for broken design elements. I would take it one step further, though.
Another really good example of design skeleton is hidden in World of Warcraft. That element is the "PvP trinket." Once per couple of minutes, any character can use this trinket to get out of a control effect for free, and it protects them from control effects for a very brief period. Every character has equal access to this trinket for very minimal effort. I know it's one of the cheapest items to buy with honor points, although I got mine for getting ranking (which was also very easy).
This trinket lets people break free of chain fears or stuns for a moment and gives them a chance to turn a battle around. It doesn't give them a complete pass, since it lasts only a few moments and has a long cooldown. This means you've got to use it intelligently, but it means that if you fight against a complete stun lockdown or fear/charm chain, you've got a few seconds to break free and stop them from keeping the lockdown going. This means you've always got a shot in a fight - a rogue can't ambush you from behind and stun you forever with no way to fight back until you die (It's worth noting that rogues in particular are kind of good at re-stunning you immediately after it runs out, but warlocks can have a hard time dealing with the trinket).
Other good examples include universal mobility options. These options need to have counters, but things like dashes, flying, multiple jumps, or whatever are pretty good at forcing the fight to go in different directions. A player should always have the avenue of escape if it's a fight they can't win. On the flip side, these options should not be entirely uncounterable. A good example might be a stamina meter so that dashes cannot be used to just flee forever. Another good example might be snares/movement slow that some characters can employ to keep others from fleeing.
Within this design structure you do need to look at all the pieces though and design counters around them. For instance, if you have absolute methods of escape such as teleportation, you need to design a counter to that, such as a class that can lay down anti-teleport fields or has a debuff that cancels teleporting skills. To that end, you also need to be able to counter those elements, so the anti-teleport field needs to be small enough to be escapable, or needs to be able to be destroyed. The teleport debuff should be able to be removed by friendly players, and so on. This creates strategy elements that enhance the game, rather than subtract from it.
Another important thing within the design skeleton is giving people abilities which obsolete elements of the design skeleton. If you give everyone a dash for escaping, some characters might get a better dash ability or a flight or double jump. These characters probably won't use their dash very much in favor of using their other skills. Another better example is the repair kits one, where normal characters can use repair kits to heal themselves, but healers can do a much better job on both other characters and themselves. These things are perfectly normal and natural elements, and should be encouraged.
If you make characters decent without needing special powers, you'll find people that will experiment a lot more with those special powers. This is good, fun, and enhances your game. And when you make changes, people won't feel as much like their character is useless, because even without their special powers at 100%, characters can still contribute.
This does not preclude the use of easy 're-skill' options that let players fix their characters. Always, always let players fix their mistakes.
One of the thing that annoys me in game design is when people insist on making things a certain way because they need to conform to existing, previous design decisions.
I don't quite think I can explain this very well, so I'll use an example to illustrate.
Waaaay back in the 90s there was this popular fighting game called Mortal Kombat. A lot of you guys have probably heard of it! The characters in MK were very similar. They all had the same normal moves with the same hitboxes, and they all had the same number of special moves. One characters had an exception (Johnny Cage's groin punch). This game was really, really not that fun design. Most of it was about playing the best character (probably Sub-Zero; Scorpion had an anti-projectile teleport though, making it not so clear-cut) who had slightly better versions of the same watered-down moves.
Mortal Kombat never really strayed from this design much. Characters continued to have very similar basic attacks and fairly similar special moves. Although different characters became the best, it was still clearly in favor of characters that had broken gameplay elements or slightly better versions of the same boring special moves.
By contrast, around the same time, there was Street Fighter 2: Championship Edition (CE for short). CE was an older, more busted/abusive version of SF compared to the newer versions of the game (HF, Super SF2, ST, and HDR) but it was much more refined than Street Fighter 2. The moves in CE were very different from each other. Ken's low medium kick was vastly different than Sagat's in both reach, power, and utility. Projectiles in the game fired at varying speeds, recovered at different times, and had very different amounts of hit stun and damage. Special moves had radically different properties as a whole - Bison's torpedo (psycho crusher) behaved much differently than Honda's torpedo (sumo headbutt) despite being similar moves.
SF2 would definitely be the harder game to balance. It's had a lot of iterations whereas each Mortal Kombat game, with the exception of 3, has had only one (3 had a version called Ultimate Mortal Kombat, with a lot of new characters and the same basic gameplay). While MK was never really ever balanced at all (MK vs. DC sure isn't) it would have taken the developers much more effort. Why didn't they?
The problem really is rules. Moves in the old MK universe (not sure if this is entirely true but I suspect it still is) follow a certain design guideline. Moves deal x amount of damage if they're a certain kind of hit, and put you in a certain type of stun. Moves that knock you up or down or launch you around all launch you in a certain way. Rather than fine-tune these values, the MK designers set up a bunch of guidelines for how they'd make abilities, and just sat down and made a bunch of skills and threw them into the game. This is from what I have seen still the case even in the more recent MK games, although there's a lot more types of attack now so there is more diversity.
This isn't really for fighting game design though. It's far more of a pen and paper or MMORPG type of design. D&D 4th suffers from it a little bit, and Returners FFRPG has a lot of it there. These systems are good uses of rules to create lots of cool things, but Returners in particular is kind of bad about having not enough flexibility (particularly in the equipment area).
There's another type of design that totally throws rules out the window. In fact, this is pretty much the entire design behind SF2CE and most SF games in general. This design says, design a lot of broken stuff, make your characters really unique, and hand the broken stuff out, a few to each character. This is also the method WoW uses, notably. After you've totally thrown your game on its head you can then adjust things.
Most games use this method, and it is also bad. The main reason it is bad is that you can very easily create metagame shifts - if you give some class something you don't think is that bad and it then becomes overpowered, many people will switch to playing that class and abusing the tactic you gave them. Even worse, when you fix the imbalance (nerf it!) people get pissed.
The only way this design strategy is even sort of good is if your players can easily adjust to changes. A good example of doing this is Guild Wars. When skills get changed, GW players can easily change out their skills for different ones and there are numerous quality build options for any given class in both PvE and PvP.
A bad example of this is World of Warcraft. Classes are forced to take skills (or be less effective) so nerfing them is generally bad stuff. For instance, if one were to nerf a rogue's crippling poison so that it was less effective, the rogue could not change that ability out. While there is some ability to change talents, any change to a class can resonate strongly. Also, talent changes cost the player valuable gold and are quite expensive, especially for lower level players who are more likely to make mistakes.
A really bad example of this is Ragnarok Online. In RO, if you mess up your character's build with an errant misclick, it costs you real money to fix. Prior to the introduction of the cash shop, which lets you spend real money for things in the game, you could not fix these errors at all. One misclick meant you'd need to delete your character and make a new one. If the developers ever change the way the game is played by altering skills or adding new equipment that forces you to re-stat your character, you have to pay real money to fix the problem or delete your character.
The moral of this story is really to never play RO.
So there's a third way to design, and it involves rules but only sort of. It's way harder to start but way easier to balance. That method is using a design skeleton. It's a made-up-ish term and I feel sort of nerdy using it. Oh well.
What I mean by design skeleton is that you take a base character and give him some things he can do no matter what. This stuff should be common to everyone - some classes or characters might not have these traits in favor of powerful other tricks but the basic character skeleton is shared by all characters as a default.
To illustrate this somewhat I'm going to bring up a game that no one actually played, Tabula Rasa. In TR every character could use a ranged weapon with a certain base amount of skill, so everyone could defend themselves. They could also melee with their ranged weapon too. These abilities were NOT sub-standard. I made a support character (healer type) and I had a significant number of weapon switches, including shotguns and rifles. I did not even use my class specific weapon and instead relied on basic guns as backup to my class powers.
Even better in my opinion is that every class in that game had some access to self heals in the form of repair kits and modules to repair damaged armor. The healer classes were way better at it and could do many things like area effect repairs and large single target repairs, but everyone could recover from lots of damage if they took cover and used repair kits.
This did not exclude my healer class or the combat classes. My friends played assault classes, and I was able to greatly aid them with my repair packs and 'magic' spells, which were better than the assault characters' repairs and magic, and let them focus on shooting things with their assault class guns. Still, there were times when my repair kits weren't needed and my mana was low, and I happily pulled out my rifle or shotgun and did some blasty.
This design is absolutely awesome. I especially liked the fact that assault characters could aid themselves if I couldn't get to them, either due to reloading (med/armor/shield packs took a long time to reload, so if you ran out of uses in the pack you'd have to wait a few seconds) or because I wasn't close enough. The main failings of TR was a bad beta filled with bugs (which led to bad PR), and characters that weren't unique enough. The end game classes were really sexy, though.
With a game design like TR's where baseline characters are able to function, you have more wiggle room for broken design elements. I would take it one step further, though.
Another really good example of design skeleton is hidden in World of Warcraft. That element is the "PvP trinket." Once per couple of minutes, any character can use this trinket to get out of a control effect for free, and it protects them from control effects for a very brief period. Every character has equal access to this trinket for very minimal effort. I know it's one of the cheapest items to buy with honor points, although I got mine for getting ranking (which was also very easy).
This trinket lets people break free of chain fears or stuns for a moment and gives them a chance to turn a battle around. It doesn't give them a complete pass, since it lasts only a few moments and has a long cooldown. This means you've got to use it intelligently, but it means that if you fight against a complete stun lockdown or fear/charm chain, you've got a few seconds to break free and stop them from keeping the lockdown going. This means you've always got a shot in a fight - a rogue can't ambush you from behind and stun you forever with no way to fight back until you die (It's worth noting that rogues in particular are kind of good at re-stunning you immediately after it runs out, but warlocks can have a hard time dealing with the trinket).
Other good examples include universal mobility options. These options need to have counters, but things like dashes, flying, multiple jumps, or whatever are pretty good at forcing the fight to go in different directions. A player should always have the avenue of escape if it's a fight they can't win. On the flip side, these options should not be entirely uncounterable. A good example might be a stamina meter so that dashes cannot be used to just flee forever. Another good example might be snares/movement slow that some characters can employ to keep others from fleeing.
Within this design structure you do need to look at all the pieces though and design counters around them. For instance, if you have absolute methods of escape such as teleportation, you need to design a counter to that, such as a class that can lay down anti-teleport fields or has a debuff that cancels teleporting skills. To that end, you also need to be able to counter those elements, so the anti-teleport field needs to be small enough to be escapable, or needs to be able to be destroyed. The teleport debuff should be able to be removed by friendly players, and so on. This creates strategy elements that enhance the game, rather than subtract from it.
Another important thing within the design skeleton is giving people abilities which obsolete elements of the design skeleton. If you give everyone a dash for escaping, some characters might get a better dash ability or a flight or double jump. These characters probably won't use their dash very much in favor of using their other skills. Another better example is the repair kits one, where normal characters can use repair kits to heal themselves, but healers can do a much better job on both other characters and themselves. These things are perfectly normal and natural elements, and should be encouraged.
If you make characters decent without needing special powers, you'll find people that will experiment a lot more with those special powers. This is good, fun, and enhances your game. And when you make changes, people won't feel as much like their character is useless, because even without their special powers at 100%, characters can still contribute.
This does not preclude the use of easy 're-skill' options that let players fix their characters. Always, always let players fix their mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe to RN!
Posts
All Comments