In the words of Douglas Adams: DON'T PANIC! Despite the title, this is not the beginnings of some perverted new game idea, and nor is it some misguided attempt to bring Facebook to the forefront of my blogs. In fact, it is an entry completely devoid of any sexual or other inuendos (in YOUR endo), excepting that one. Surprising as it may be, this article is actually about Poker! (pause for silence while thousands of upset Googlers return to their search results for 'poke her').
This blog is about an idea that has been floating around the edge of my consciousness for the last couple of weeks, conveniently avoiding the more productive parts of my brain when I actually have the time to write about it. The idea initially stemmed from a comment made by the lecturer in one of our recent games lectures. I believe it was in week 5 or 6, whilst discussing uncertainty in games, and the topic of poker was raised. To be honest, it's entirely moot what lecture it actually took place in, as the idea itself was not really in direct relation to the lecture content...or anything for that matter, except Poker. As I have once again written a couple of hundred words (198 as of last sentence for those playing at home) without actually really saying anything much at all, I'll try to get on with the rest of this post.
I was thinking about how a game can be significantly changed by simply modifying some rules (it is quite possible that this thought was also prompted by the lecture). By making a slight modification to game mechanics, or a gentle tweak to game balance, the entire game, and the way it is played, can be completely altered. Enter brilliant (or more likely catastrophic and destined for failure) idea for Poker: Replace chips (money in the Poker game for those poor souls who have been cruelly sheltered from the wonderful world of gambling) with soldiers! And watch the whole game unfold and fall into disarray. Most likely burning as well - that always happens when soldiers are involved.
Actually, the idea is slightly more developed than that. Betting is the core mechanic in Poker (and indeed bluffing, as the two go hand in hand). Remove money from the equation and the game very quickly becomes much more a game of luck than skill (what is the point in holding out for that great hand, or bluffing your opponent, when nothing is at risk). However, I was wondering at how successful a game could be by not removing the betting from Poker as such, but replacing it with a significantly different mechanic. Instead of chips, a player has soldiers. More radically, the soldiers committed to an engagement do not simply represent a player's confidence in their hand, but become an integral factor in the strength of a player's hand. How? Take the following Texas Hold'Em:
Your hand: Ace (spades), 6 (hearts)
Opponent's hand: 7 (hearts), King (clubs)
Flop: King (diamonds), 3 (spades), Jack (hearts)
Being the adventurous player that you are, you would normally at least call here, holding out for the unlikely event of a queen and 10 in the turn and river. So, you commit a token force to the engagement, as does your opponent.
Turn: Ace (diamonds)
Well the straight is out, but pair aces isn't that bad. Just as a backup, you send in another unit of men to bolster your claim. Your opponent considers the situation, noting the most recent card on the table, and starts considering how much he actually needs those already committed soldiers. Rightly, he assumes that you both must be at a near equal position, and so commits an unit himself.
River: King (hearts)
The final blow, although you don't know it. Two-pair, you've probably got this. But why is your opponent sitting back, relaxed? Why does he only send in enough men to clean up after the slaughter's over? Scared? Well, you've got the man-power, so make him hurt for his victory. You send in your complete force!
Cards are shown; three kings beats two pairs, opponent laughs smugly. However, unfortunately for him, he didn't commit nearly enough men to survive your 5000 angry soldiers. Each wielding 2 pears!
This example serves to give an idea how the game might pan out. Obviously, this is by no means a complete idea, and there are several areas that would need to be thought out, such as mechanics for exactly how a player's soldiers impact the strength of their hand. However, it is, I believe, an interesting idea and concept, and a very different approach to Poker which could allow for a whole different kind of tactics to be employed in the game. In another post, I'll look more into this idea and various issues associated with it (sadly, as with all my ideas I seem to be finding more holes in it the more I think about it).
Sunday, April 27, 2008
iGamed
Unfortunately, life recently has become rather hectic. As a consequence, I've been left essentially completely devoid of anything that could be considered to represent an idea (for a game that is - my brain is still functioning...barely). Just as I find novels are quite helpful in gifting me with rich (albeit unrealistic) ideas for games, I similarly find that attempting to decipher the hex byte values of a master boot record is equally productive in ensuring I will never have a good idea again (it also apparently ruins my ability to write understandable sentences).
In a cruel twist of fate, it seems that time that would once have been spent playing games is now devoted instead to working with games technologies in a way that sucks all the joy from them (i.e. programming in a games engine - Second Life (dubious I know) and fiddling with Linux on a games platform - the Playstation 3). The irony of this is not lost on me.
So at the risk of actually turning this post into a whinge (I hate whinging), and moving so far off course as to find myself wandering in a hostile, barren landscape of blistering heat and scalding wind-swept sand, where even the ... Sorry, there is a point to this post:
This recent creative dry-patch (hmm...perhaps that hostile, barren landscape of blistering heat and scalding wind-swept sand, where even the... well that, perhaps it wasn't so far off topic) has highlighted to me, once again, how important constant stimulus is (for me) in maintaining and fueling my creative process. I find that I leech off other games, whether they provide a source of inspiration, or simply a convenient environment for my mind to unwind enough to allow creativity to flow. Given this, and assuming it is a correct discovery, and not a misguided assumption, I suppose I should make more effort to live up to my blog's title.
In a cruel twist of fate, it seems that time that would once have been spent playing games is now devoted instead to working with games technologies in a way that sucks all the joy from them (i.e. programming in a games engine - Second Life (dubious I know) and fiddling with Linux on a games platform - the Playstation 3). The irony of this is not lost on me.
So at the risk of actually turning this post into a whinge (I hate whinging), and moving so far off course as to find myself wandering in a hostile, barren landscape of blistering heat and scalding wind-swept sand, where even the ... Sorry, there is a point to this post:
This recent creative dry-patch (hmm...perhaps that hostile, barren landscape of blistering heat and scalding wind-swept sand, where even the... well that, perhaps it wasn't so far off topic) has highlighted to me, once again, how important constant stimulus is (for me) in maintaining and fueling my creative process. I find that I leech off other games, whether they provide a source of inspiration, or simply a convenient environment for my mind to unwind enough to allow creativity to flow. Given this, and assuming it is a correct discovery, and not a misguided assumption, I suppose I should make more effort to live up to my blog's title.
Thursday, April 3, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
BLOG is for Back LOG
Just to clarify: I have been keeping my journal in a little notebook, as I find I brainstorm my ideas better on paper. However, I hate attempting to formalise my ideas on paper, or write in anything other than disjointed thoughts / sentences and dot points. Consequently, I decided to upload all my entries to an online blog, and from now on I will be adding my entries here. I have not simply written 8 blog entries in the last hour.
Systemic or Systematic ramblings
Our third lecture in this subject made me think once again about the narrative system I was explaining in my first post. As that post was made before we had that lecture, I thought I'd update my thoughts on how it relates to complex systems within games.
The adaptive narrative I described in my first post could be represented as an extension to a game's formal system, primarily focusing on extending the attributes, internal relationships and environment of the game.
For instance, an NPC's (object's) behaviour is determined by its attributes, and by increasing the system's complexity, this could include situational behaviour defining how the NPC should react in various situations. Furthermore, by interlinking this with the internal relationships of the system, it provides a framework for expressing how various objects of the system should interract and behave together.
As previously mentioned, this idea is very young and its overall do-ability and effectiveness is not known. At risk of this post turning into rambling, I will attempt to sum up: game mechanics such as the artificial intelligence and adaptive narrative explained previously, should be incorporated as elements into the game's formal system as a whole. Rather than having separate elements such as narrative, AI, and various other mechanics, these could all be combined into a complex system allowing a greater degree of interraction between these elements, and consequently a greater degree of complexity and player interactivity in a game's system.
The adaptive narrative I described in my first post could be represented as an extension to a game's formal system, primarily focusing on extending the attributes, internal relationships and environment of the game.
For instance, an NPC's (object's) behaviour is determined by its attributes, and by increasing the system's complexity, this could include situational behaviour defining how the NPC should react in various situations. Furthermore, by interlinking this with the internal relationships of the system, it provides a framework for expressing how various objects of the system should interract and behave together.
As previously mentioned, this idea is very young and its overall do-ability and effectiveness is not known. At risk of this post turning into rambling, I will attempt to sum up: game mechanics such as the artificial intelligence and adaptive narrative explained previously, should be incorporated as elements into the game's formal system as a whole. Rather than having separate elements such as narrative, AI, and various other mechanics, these could all be combined into a complex system allowing a greater degree of interraction between these elements, and consequently a greater degree of complexity and player interactivity in a game's system.
Innovate me
I think games too often focus on implementing old systems with a new GUI shell, or slightly tweaked story. This is particularly true for many adventure or RPG style games, which depend more heavily on story than many other games. By sticking to common systems, such as the experience based levelling system and D&D dice based combat, or damage multiplier based combat system, game developers are guaranteed that on that front at least their game isn’t going to fail. Instead they focus on coming up with an original story and fancy graphics, with potentially some nice new features, to cover the fact that their game is really only a reworked shell of hundreds of older titles. The problem is, this latter part often isn’t done well: game stories are frequently lacking substance and quality that they should have (at least in the sci-fi / fantasy area) and most graphics revolutions seem to be in FPSs and racing games.
Take for instance the traditional fantasy model: just once I would like to play a fantasy based adventure or RPG game where I am not a prodigy child or hero that has been prophecised about. It only takes reading a few novels in the fantasy genre to learn a few things about this model:
1. It’s excessively overused
2. When the story does not follow this model, it is generally a much better read
These thoughts on innovative story lines have been prompted by the book I’m currently reading: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson. This is a widely acclaimed (apparently) novel of the fantasy genre. However, I have, thus far, been utterly disappointed by how stereotypical a story it is. At approximately 200 pages in it is completely unoriginal and not even written that interestingly. Granted it took a different path in introducing the fantasy world, but once there the story represents everything that makes fantasy boring: prophesised (and reluctant) hero, land with very definitive good and evil, self-righteous people and all that jazz. As previously mentioned, books form a great source of inspiration for me. Even the bad ones, such as this, have prompted several thoughts on how story plays such a part, especially in fantasy genred games, and how important it consequently is to provide game players with something truly original.
Conflict mechanics in games are another area that could do with an innovative overhaul. Lecture 4 mentioned conflict as being an integral element of games, and explained how various different styles of coflict can be implemented in game. Although several avenues for conflict can be implemented in games, so often in a vast majority of fantasy titles do they only implement the oldest Physical style of conflict. In some more recent titles we’re starting to see examples of Verbal conflict, and situations that promote employing other means to avoid physical conflict. However, generally speaking, this form of conflict is still the dominant form in most fantasy adventure and RPG games. Granted, the genre tends to be fairly combat oriented, but this is no reason why it should lack innovation and exploration.
I would love to see RPGs that implement a revolutionary combat system that wasn’t dependent on the roll of a dice, or the damage multiplier and other relevant stats of a character. So too would I love to see a higher prevelance of focus on conflict in games that explores other avenues such as political and social conflict. Their limited existence has proven to have interesting side effects on games, and it could revolutionise the genre to bring out games that had a much higher dependency on maintaining political alliances, or staging economic coups on others.
Take for instance the traditional fantasy model: just once I would like to play a fantasy based adventure or RPG game where I am not a prodigy child or hero that has been prophecised about. It only takes reading a few novels in the fantasy genre to learn a few things about this model:
1. It’s excessively overused
2. When the story does not follow this model, it is generally a much better read
These thoughts on innovative story lines have been prompted by the book I’m currently reading: The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson. This is a widely acclaimed (apparently) novel of the fantasy genre. However, I have, thus far, been utterly disappointed by how stereotypical a story it is. At approximately 200 pages in it is completely unoriginal and not even written that interestingly. Granted it took a different path in introducing the fantasy world, but once there the story represents everything that makes fantasy boring: prophesised (and reluctant) hero, land with very definitive good and evil, self-righteous people and all that jazz. As previously mentioned, books form a great source of inspiration for me. Even the bad ones, such as this, have prompted several thoughts on how story plays such a part, especially in fantasy genred games, and how important it consequently is to provide game players with something truly original.
Conflict mechanics in games are another area that could do with an innovative overhaul. Lecture 4 mentioned conflict as being an integral element of games, and explained how various different styles of coflict can be implemented in game. Although several avenues for conflict can be implemented in games, so often in a vast majority of fantasy titles do they only implement the oldest Physical style of conflict. In some more recent titles we’re starting to see examples of Verbal conflict, and situations that promote employing other means to avoid physical conflict. However, generally speaking, this form of conflict is still the dominant form in most fantasy adventure and RPG games. Granted, the genre tends to be fairly combat oriented, but this is no reason why it should lack innovation and exploration.
I would love to see RPGs that implement a revolutionary combat system that wasn’t dependent on the roll of a dice, or the damage multiplier and other relevant stats of a character. So too would I love to see a higher prevelance of focus on conflict in games that explores other avenues such as political and social conflict. Their limited existence has proven to have interesting side effects on games, and it could revolutionise the genre to bring out games that had a much higher dependency on maintaining political alliances, or staging economic coups on others.
World of You're-Never-Going-To-Finish-Me-Craft
“Four years have passed now since the aftermath of Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos, and a great tension now smolders throughout the ravaged world of Azeroth. As the battle-worn races begin to rebuild their shattered kingdoms, new threads, both ancient and ominous, arise to plague the world once again.”
This is a potential concept statement for World of Warcraft. At the very least, it is the introduction to the game given on their website. This sets the scene for the game, at the same time as giving little enough detail to keep people curious. WoW is nothing special in terms of its concept statement. It does, however, take an interesting approach to start and end conditions. Well mainly end conditions.
Start Condition: Each race has its own starting area, where the player is initiated into the game with a small backstory about their race of choice, and where they can familiarise themselves with the game completing some simple quests. In terms of individual background, the player essentially starts a clean slate with no backstory. The game itself also only gives the player a brief overview of plot backstory (in the long run, plot comes a long way down the list of driving factors in this game – why are we killing Illidan? Because he drops epics…).
End Condition: This game takes an interesting approach to end conditions, in that the definable end does not take place in game, but out, in one of two situations:
- You ‘/quit’ the game due to one of several factors including, but not limited to:
- Your loot being ninja’d
- Blizzard failing to adequately buff your class
- Repetitive PVP deaths to a class that Blizzard has repeatedly buffed
- Guild related angst
- Inability to deal with noobs
- You tire of the game after reaching 60 / 70 / 80 and realising your class sucks. This coincides with realising that there are several months / years of your life missing and you can’t get them back
- You continue playing…forever, until WoW not only dominates your life, but your death, when you’re inflicted with a disease (incurable) that deals -100 stamina every hour.
Funnily enough, neither of these situations would really constitute a player winning the game, or even finishing it. Does this mean that WoW is not technically a game, as it can’t be finished? Or does it represent a game that has an undetermined end condition, where the end condition is decided not by the developers, but by the players and what they hope to achieve from the game.
This raises an interesting issue in regards to Lecture 2: do start and end conditions always have to be decided by developers, or is it enough to simply create a framework and allow the player to decide what constitutes having ‘finished’ the game?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)