Roots: What we can learn from a traditional Pen & Paper RPG

January 19th, 2009 by DanB | Posted in Feature | No Comments »

I. Introduction

Over the weekend I was able to take part in a Palladium RIFTS campaign. With no previous experience with any Palladium product, I was excited to get the chance to check out some new mechanics and systems. For those of you who are unaware, RIFTS is a multi-genre system with an absolutely huge game world.  The game describes it as the megaverse, just to give you some idea of how grand it takes itself to be.  The basic premise of the game is that in the near future, ley lines begin to manifest on the surface of the Earth, and dimensional rifts begin to open.  The planet becomes a galactic crossroads of sorts, and all kinds of bizarreness that can be expected from that follows.

To begin, characters are created by choosing a O(ccupational).C(haracter).C(class). or R(acial).C.C. and rolling, choosing, and buying things to flesh out the character.  The sheer number of O/R.C.C.s is staggering; I would estimate that within all of the source books there are more than a hundred to choose from.  Everything from summoners, techno-wizards, government agents and shapeshifters exist in the RIFTS megaverse.  Similarly, items, weapons, and armor of every shape, size, and type can be found and used.

After creating a character, adventuring begins.  There are a large assortment of magic, psionics, and skills to choose from, with a good balance of combat and non-combat uses.  Depending on how the game is GM’d, you may find yourself sleuthing around settlements looking for clues to a mystery, or engaging in combat with who-knows-what kind of baddies.  Combat can be summed up as every hollywood action movie you’ve ever seen, combined into one:  Telepaths throwing people around with their minds, mages throwing fireballs everywhere, and super-soldiers wielding massive particle beams.  The GM’s ability to keep the game under control is critical in RIFTS; without keeping a rein on things, combat can get out of control if players try to push the envelope.

II. Character Design

One of the most interesting parts about the RIFTS system was the character design.  With the premise that essentially everything is available, you have some very unique choices as to what kind of character you want to be.  A party may consist of a telepath, demon summoner, and old west sheriff.  The classes are basically a set of stat bonuses, maybe a special mechanic or two, and a list of available skills (some of which you get a bonus to).  For example, a detective may get bonuses to any espionage and lore (knowledge) skills he picks, as well as some street skills and basic gun knowledge.  For secondary skills you may choose anything, but they are considered amateur-level and usually RP-oriented.

There are a couple interesting implications from this system.  The first is that there is a balance between the number of choices and freedom.  You are given a huge set of choices, but each of those choices are defined concretely and set the boundaries of your character.  This does a lot to control in-game balance:  while RIFTS is inherently “powerful”, it keeps characters within roughly the same order of magnitude.  This level of freedom coupled with control is fantastic, it allows most players to find something near-exact to what they want, but keep the game fair to all.

To get this same level of balance and freedom in a computer or console RPG, you could start by creating a very wide class system.  A huge set of skills (both combat and non-combat) and equipment assigned into many (20+) unique class chunks with strong story/roleplay backgrounds.  Players get to choose something that suits their style, while staying within the boundaries of the game.  This has been implemented on a smaller scale in some D&D-based computer games; coincidentally those particular games have typically earned very strong reviews.  Increasing this even further would create even more player satisfaction; the ability to be exactly what you imagine and immerse yourself in that role is one of the hallmarks of a good RPG.

III. World Design

The second concept from RIFTS that I found interesting to study was the world design.  With such an unimaginably huge world with nearly everything available, you would think there would be nothing more than utter chaos.  While this may occur in a poorly GM’d game, for the most part there are enough checks and balances that even a world as vast as RIFTS stays under control while offering nearly everything to the players.  The true value in the design isn’t so much the scope of the universe; it is the depth that it goes into each genre/area.  If you don’t believe me, consider this: the core rulebook has rules for hand-to-hand robot fights; it also has skills related to branding and herding cattle.

This isn’t to say that every game needs to be multi-genre like RIFTS.  In fact, RIFTS is one of the few roleplaying worlds where it actually works.  Regardless of how wide or narrow the theme of a game is, depth is critical to creating a believable and immersive world.  Let’s take a traditional fantasy game for example.  We’ve all played fantasy games where dragons, elves, dwarves, and magic were front and center.  In fact, let’s make it even more specific and focus on magic.

How does the game define magic?  Who can use it?  Where did/does it come from?  What are the implications on society?  How powerful is it?  How often can it be used?  How many types of magic are there?  Are their any ill-effects to using magic?  I would be shocked if more than 10% of fantasy games addressed these types of questions.  The rest simply gloss over them by saying, “It’s magic.  You know, the stuff you’ve been using in every RPG for the last twenty years?”  On the other hand,  RIFTS fully explains magic in such volume and depth that only the most dedicated will know all its intricacies.

This amount of depth is critical to a world environment that feels real, that players respond to.  Even a simple world can be given depth by exploring what makes the world so simple.  An RPG focused around a single kingdom can be many times more immersive than one that spans seven worlds if that single kingdom is given the proper treatment and depth.  Giving players unique characters to roleplay has no value if there isn’t an appropriate stage to play on.  If there is a single kingdom, fine, we will take it.  But we want to know everything about it.

IV. Final Thoughts

The biggest thing I took away from my RIFTS session was that characters and the world they inhabit are what make or break a game.  RIFTS doesn’t have the most refined systems; combat can be clunky at times and certain things are quite arcane to the new player.  Regardless of that, the game I played was highly enjoyable:  the characters were unique and we were in a place that was truly interesting and immersive.  Players will make a game work if they are interested enough in the characters and universe.

How many games out there have received good or great reviews based on the quality of the characters and world, while possessing a subpar UI and mechanics system?  Quite a few.  How many games have received similar reviews based on the quality of the UI and mechanics while possessing subpar characters and world?  None.

People buy games to be immersed…not to see a shiny system move paper cutouts around a featureless world.

Breakdown: Morrowind

January 10th, 2009 by DanB | Posted in Feature, Games | 2 Comments »

Before I begin a breakdown of this game, I would like to give a little background.  Morrowind was one of the first games I truly obsessed over.  I upgraded my computer solely to play Morrowind.  I played it so much when I was sick with the stomach flu that it gave me motion sickness.  To this day, it is likely one of my top ten games in terms of how much time I spent playing it.  What does that have to do with the breakdown of the game?  Let me tell you.

I. Scale

There was one thing above all else that attracted me (and I would suspect many others) to this game:  the scale of the world.  From the moment I heard about the sheer size of Vvardenfell, I knew this was something I had to experience.  From the moment a player sets foot on the island and begins looking around, true scope of what they are entering.  Miles and miles of the unknown, just begging to be explored.  But it’s not merely the fact that the island is huge; there are many games with just as much “space” to cover.  It is the fact that you are so small and insignificant in this huge world.  The world looms impossibly large around your character, something I had never experienced before in a game.

II. Presentation

Not only was the world of Vvardenfell simply large, it was real.  Towns were far apart, and filled largely with people who really didn’t give a damn that you existed.  Points of interest dotted the maps and were full of baddies, but usually full of average junk as well.  Rewards weren’t obligatory, some of the best items were the easiest to find, and some of the strangest locales held nothing of monetary value.  The entire world was presented in a way that made you feel there, but of correct proportion.  You will eventually gain strength, but in the beginning you will feel appropriately weak and insignificant.  The sheer scale combined with this idea of a tiny place in the world was a true innovation on the RPG genre.

The second aspect of the presentation that excelled was the artistic style.  It seems almost too easy for developers to fall into the traditional fantasy theme (I’m looking at you, Oblivion).  Morrowind had a much more dark, alien world to it.  Sure there were swords, magic, and castles, but there were also organic pod cities full of mages and bizarre domed cities.

The largest city in the game is not a castle community but a strange tiered city with flowing rivers and a floating prison built into a giant rock.  This departure from “traditional” fantasy made for one of the most unique game experiences out there; it made the player feel as though they were in a far away yet real land, and not in some pulp fantasy realm.

III. Storyline

The final piece that made the Morrowind experience was the treatment of the storyline.  The story itself is fairly standard but well played out; after getting into it you will probably want to see how it ends.  That said, the appeal of Morrowind is the ability to detach yourself from the storyline and explore on your own volition.  Multiple factions, sidequests, and hidden artifacts await the player who takes the time to find them.  The concept is simple, and possibly disasterous if executed poorly; a game with no direction can leave players without any idea of where the fun may be.  Bethesda did a good job of making the storyline compelling enough to follow when you needed a push while leaving the world accessible enough for people to find things to do by themselves.

III.5. Mods

Since player-created mods aren’t a core part of the game design, I’ll only give them half of heading.  That said, the inclusion of a strong construction kit designed for players was brilliant.  Allowing players to tweak the game as well as add things to suit their preferences has greatly increased the longevity of the game.  When Fallout 3 was released without a construction kit, many players were up in arms.  Designing a game engine that allows for this should be considered a core part of game design in the future.

IV. Summary

Morrowind had a lot of unique things going for it when it was released:  huge size, impressive presentation, and an inobtrusive storyline.  It increased our expectations for RPGs and showed that a game doesn’t have to have gimmicks to work.  Simply give a player a system, a world, and let them explore it.  Remarkably simple design, but incredible results.

Dwarf Fortress II: Histories of Progress and Pandemonium

January 7th, 2009 by DanB | Posted in Feature, Games | No Comments »

What do you get if you combine Dungeon Keeper, Civilization, the Sims, and the battle of Helmsdeep?  Dwarf Fortress II by Bay 12 games.

DF (as I will refer to it for the rest of this article) is, in the most basic terms, a dwarven colony simulator.  The premise is simple: create a group of settlers, give them some supplies, pick a location and begin your new fortress.  Once there, you may begin digging out passageways and rooms so that you can begin construction of your bedrooms, workshops, and storage areas.  From these facilities you will create the foundations of your dwarven city of dreams.

“But Dan,” you may ask, “you said this was similar to [see introduction].” In time, dear reader.  You see, to understand DF, you must play it.  The learning curve is approximately 1.7 miles high and covered in jagged spikes, but at the top sits nugget of gold.  Once you get to that gold, you will understand the controlled chaos that is a dwarven fortress.

[[ Important Caveat: Dwarf Fortress uses ASCII graphics.  These are the same type of graphics you'd see in nethack or any other older PC game.  That big smiling dude to the right is an ASCII character.  If you can't deal with that, there are graphics packages that replace the characters with shinier ones.  That said, play the game for it's depth, not for the silly pictures. ]]

The depth of DF is staggering.  Even something as cursory as food production is a challenge.  You can’t simply plop down a farm and wait for food to be produced.  You must create a viable plot of land, mark it as a field, irrigate it, set dwarves to work and harvest it, then optionally process the food.  Irrigating often entails complex engineer systems of levers, floodgates, and tunnels.

The dwarves themselves have staggering detail.  Each dwarf has likes and dislikes regarding everything from food to clothing to building materials.  In addition to the set attributes, there are tens of individual skills can be developed by each dwarf, allowing them to create the items you will need to outfit your fortress.  From masterpiece basalt beds encrusted with emeralds to multi-tiered fountains with elaborate engravings, you can build it.

It’s guaranteed that your first fortress will fail miserably.  Probably your second as well.  Likely your third, too.  But eventually you will find a system that works.  DF truly shines when you begin to see the sheer amount of options that begin to present themselves.  Want to make a three tiered vault of death for the sarcophagus of your most heroic dwarf?  Go right ahead. Want to build a massive wall of siege weapons behind doors that open at the drop of a lever?  You can do that too. Want to get rid of all those ungrateful migrants by creating a retracting bridge over a bottomless pit?  No problem. In DF, the only real limits are your imagination, greed, and cruelty.

Describing DF in this small of a space seems almost an injustice.  The game has rightfully garnered tons of awards and attention and is making Toady One an indie developer superstar.  If you consider yourself a strategy, sim, or any type of real gamer, you owe it to yourself to check it out.  If nothing else, read the story of the fortress called Boatmurdered.  It is from a very early version of the game, yet adequately describes the glory and horror you can expect.

Tell your stories of DF carnage and competency in the comments, so that others may understand the true depths of this indie gem.

We need more Patapon

March 15th, 2008 by DanB | Posted in Feature, Games | No Comments »

Anyone with a PSP owes it to themselves to go out get Patapon now.

Why such a strong recommendation? Simple, because Patapon is both one of the best games on the PSP and one of the most original (and well designed) games I’ve played in a very long time. For the unaware, Patapon is a rhythm-RPG-strategy game based around a small tribe of eyeball people called Patapon. The Patapon have been driven into near obscurity by the Zigoton, and it is up to you as their noble god to guide them back to glory. How do you do it? By drumming the little guys into battle.

Patapon’s successful genre mixing reminds me of another genre buster, Puzzle Quest. Both are games with RPG elements in which battles are settled via atypical rhythm or puzzle sequences, respectively. From the design point of view, this is pretty interesting. We can all think of many games that integrate cross-genre elements into the core gameplay to limited success. For example, sokobanesque box puzzles in RPGs, or unique character RPG elements in RTSs. What is truly unique about Patapon and Puzzle Quest is the way that the cross genre elements become core elements instead of mere additions.

Take an RTS with RPG elements, such as Warcraft III, as example. Your unique hero units have stats, skills, and equipment ala RPG. This is acts as another level of depth to the standard RTS gameplay, but by no means is it necessary. While it takes utilization of these extra elements to maximize your effectiveness in the game, it is completely possible to beat the game and succeed in multiplayer dealing almost exclusively with the core RTS gameplay.

The difference in games like Patapon and Puzzle Quest is the way the introduced elements are included. You simply cannot play Puzzle Quest without dealing with the puzzle or RPG elements. They are both critical to the gameplay and must be utilized. The same goes for Patapon: there is no way to play the game without dealing with both rhythm and RPG elements. It even seems to be incorrect to refer to these games as RPGs with puzzle/rhythm elements; we have to say they are RPGs and puzzle/rhythm games all at once.

This whole idea of something that has more than one traditional gameplay mechanic at its core is something I would like to see a lot more of. I personally think that the less entrenched in stereotypical genres that a game is, the more opportunities there are for creativity, originality, and ultimately the creation of utility to gamers. While there will always be a place for the classic styles, one thing is for sure:

We need more Patapon!

One Console Future: Part II, Future

January 5th, 2008 by DanB | Posted in Feature | No Comments »

In Part I, we looked at the past history of the gaming industry. This brief look showed that the industry, disregarding a single slump, is following a standard industry lifecycle. In this article, business theory and principle will be used to look at the information presented and try to analyze any possible trends regarding convergence into a single console.

The thought of a single console per generation is very intriguing, both to producers and consumers. Imagine only having to buy a single console to play every game that comes out. Developers would likely benefit from the fact that there would be only one platform to design for: instead of juggling multi-platform games or porting from one to another, the game could be made once and played by all home consoles.

If there was to be one single development platform, it would have to meet the needs of the majority of all video game consumers. The following is a list of five attributes that I consider to be of high importance regarding a console:

1. Full utilization of the most current storage medium

The console would need to use the most current widely accepted storage medium. For the past two generations, DVD has been this storage medium. In G6/G7, a full 57% couldn’t play DVDs out of the box. Given the low cost and high popularity of DVDs, it is unacceptable for a console not to be capable of playing them. Any console should use and play the most current medium; DVDs this generation, Bluray or HD-DVD next generation, whichever happens to win the HD war.

2. Wireless controls that are highly expandable

Wireless technology has progressed to the point that there is absolutely no reason for controllers to require wires. Additionally, with removal of the physical linkage limitations comes the removal of arbitrary limits on how many controls there can be. A designer shouldn’t have to consider the maximum number of controls a console can have when designing. The number of controls should be limited by the game itself, not the console. Game creators should have the option of creating anything from a two player fighting game to a full-on 10 player basketball game. The only physical limitations are output size and processing power; designers should base number of player positions available on this and not on control limitations.

3. Built-in storage

The days of memory cards are over. There is no reason why a console can’t have built in flash or hard-drive space to save games. Downloadable content has proven to be both in demand and feasible; this all but requires ample local storage space. Based on hardware prices, this should be easy to include. Extra points if the storage is available remotely, but this isn’t a complete necessity.

4. Centralized online capabilities

LIVE and PSN have shown the importance of strong centralized online capabilities. The ability to have a friends list, see what others are doing, and ping them (or be pinged by them) for games are all things that should be simple to implement and add tons of product value. PC has ruled online multiplayer for so long due to the ease of online matchmaking and communication; LIVE and PSN have competed by streamlining the process. Any new console must have a capable online network.

5. Peripheral expandability

With the introduction of Bluetooth and USB, the limits on peripherals for consoles have been removed. Cameras, motion sensors, microphones, and any other of the assortments of items available have opened new doors for developers. The more limitations on hardware that are removed, the more freedom developers and designers have in terms of what they can create. The inclusion of expandability technologies is critical to any new console.

With these requirements in mind, a few more important questions arise…

Noticeably absent from the above list are any specifications dealing with actual performance: processing power, memory, etc. These specifications, while important, are somewhat arbitrary and tied into the next question: who would make it? This is where the one console future truly becomes muddied. There are two scenarios:

A. One company pushes everyone else and builds it themselves
or
B. A unified platform is developed

I’ll address scenario A first as it is the simplest. There is almost no way that any single company could ever push everyone else out of the market. The gaming market is has already eclipsed many forms of traditional entertainment in terms of money spent. Unless a single company can concurrently create extremely high barriers to entry while pushing everyone else out, there will always be companies looking to tap into this growing market. Go to any toy or electronic store and you will see not only the big three consoles, but also a plethora of small-time consoles that are trying to get a piece of the market. In short, a single hardware company will never take over the gaming industry.

Scenario B has a lot more questions, but is also the scenario that could theoretically be implemented. The biggest question regarding scenario B is the decision on the specified requirements of the platform. This would have to be done by committee and involve representatives from all the major companies in the industry. This is likely the biggest stumbling block with scenario B: getting companies to agree not only on a single set of specifications, but agree as a large enough block that it would be useful. Any unified platform would be successful only if there was a large group that supported it; any dissent or outside competition from a major competitor could severely limit the effectiveness of a unified platform

Assuming that a single set of specifications could be reached, then what? For the sake of this article, let’s assume that the companies all got together and formed the One Console Future (OCF) joint venture. They decide that OCF will require the five items listed above; additional specifications include the equivalent of 6 GHz processing power, 2 GHz for graphics, 1 gigabyte of system memory, 512 megabytes of graphical memory, and 20 gigabytes of storage space. In addition, standard system architecture will be implemented. Any company who was involved in the OCF venture (in terms of both human and monetary resources) would have license to build around this platform and use the OCF marketing materials.

How would this work out for console makers? They would have the option to build any sort of project as long as the base requirements were met. Sony, following in the steps of PS3, may create the Playstation OCF which would have the base specs in addition to 80 gigabytes of memory, wireless and wired networking, and a sub-section beyond the base OCF network where gamers could video chat. Another company may make a completely barebones package including only the bare minimum but sell it for half the price of the Sony version. Regardless of any periphery additions, all consoles would play the same games.

The idea of a one console future is something that could be examined much more deeply, taking up pages and volumes in terms of theory and conjecture. For now, the best we can say is that while it is possible, it is unlikely based on current competition and business situations. Only time will tell if the OCF venture will ever exist.

One Console Future: Part I, History

November 5th, 2007 by DanB | Posted in Feature | 2 Comments »

The concept of a single console video game market is very intriguing. While the positives and negatives of this hypothetical situation (which will be discussed in Part II) are very interesting, for now I would like to look at what the history of the video game industry and a knowledge of business and marketing can tell us about the possibility of a single console future.

First, a very, very brief introduction to video game history. Most consider the beginning of the home video game industry to be the late 1970s with introduction of the Magnavox Odyssey. Various other systems entered into the industry during this time with varying degrees of success. After two generations of consoles, the industry experienced a rapid downturn in 1983. This crash created doubt in the future of home video game systems. The crash of 1983 was precipitated largely by an influx of new competitors and questions of quality and competence. The third generation of consoles revived the industry, due largely to the success of the NES system. Since then, the industry has progressed technologically and socially to the point it is today.

The first thing that we can look at is where the video game industry is in its lifecycle. The industry lifecycle theory is a four stage cycle that can be used to describe most industries. While the exact stages vary depending on what source you refer to, the general concept can be found below:

1. Fragmentation
   During this stage, entrepreneurs begin to develop, innovate, and invent the foundations that will form the new industry. Required technology and the cognitive framework will be created at this point. Basic, unrefined products begin to enter the market. Monopoly and high profits are most likely at this point.

2. Shake-out
   The industry begins to grow as market demand is satisfied and more advanced products are demanded. Competition increases as many companies begin to enter the new market due to low barriers of entry and high growth potential. The end of this period is characterized by many companies exiting the industry due to the high degree of competition.

3. Maturity
   Consolidation of market power begins to occur as the most dominant business practices produce the greatest competitive advantage. Companies without a sustainable competitive advantage will exit the industry or be consumed during this stage. Oligopoly will be established by the largest companies.

4. Decline
   The industry begins to decline as businesses begin to lose competitive advantage due to market conditions as well as the rise of new substitute product. Companies will begin exit the industry as demand begins to decrease.

Based on this framework, it is clear that the video game industry has been following a very typical industry lifecycle. The most apparent aspect where the video game industry deviated from the lifecycle was during the shake-out stage. The crash of 1983 was very atypical for an industry in the early-middle portion of the shake-out stage. This early glut of companies exiting came very close to causing the entire industry to crash.

From this graph we see two peaks: one before the crash of 1983, and one during the end of the shake-out stage at the end of the 4^th generation. Taking out the crash of 1983, a clear trend appears of rapid industry growth followed by slow stabilization. What does all of this talk of industry lifecycles and the history of video games have to do with the prospect of a single console future?

The video game industry is in its maturity stage. In terms of companies in the industry, we have seen it grow to a peak during the 2^nd generation, a crash, a rebound to a smaller peak during the 5^th generation, and slow contraction during each successive generation. If these trends hold, it is likely the industry will continue to contract until it is at a minimum size necessary to satisfy demand (in terms of how many competing companies are demanded).

Would it be possible for the industry to contract to a single company making a single console? Or would consumer demand for choice always be high enough to support two or more companies? This will all be addressed in Part II. Stay tuned.

Sound in Games…Why the Neglect?

October 18th, 2007 by DanB | Posted in Feature | No Comments »

Sound design in games is usually given no more attention than a bullet point at the end of a review. Often, this bullet point incorrectly labeled as sound mainly focuses on the music of the game. While a good soundtrack (as well as graphics, gameplay, etc) will be applauded, the actual sounds of the game are often glossed over or even ignored. This particular phenomenon has some interesting implications for gaming and game design.

Traditional games rely on only two (sometimes three) senses. Sight, sound, and in the case of certain games, touch. With so few channels of communicating the actions of the game to the player, it is interesting how sound is given such little attention. Try this: start a game you are familiar with and play through a small area. Now reload that same area, and mute your television. Does the game feel the same? Silence is unnerving for many reasons. It often makes people feel confined, confused, or muddled. In the case of a game, silent gameplay seems unreal no matter how it grapically looks. This due to the feedback (or lack of, in the case of silence) that sound provides.

Sound is the sense primarily used to fill in what we cannot see. Without sound, things that don’t happen in our immediate area often go unnoticed. In a medium that lacks taste and smell, such as television, sound is the only “remote” sense we have. While graphics are often the focus when talking about a games presentation, a game’s sounds are often just as critical to a success.

One of my favorite examples of good sound usage is Half-Life 2. While a great game all-around, HL2 has some of the best sound design I’ve ever heard. The sounds of the combine soldiers are alien in a way that is very realistic. The radio chatter and feedback sounds are excellent. The sounds of gunfire and ricochet are very convincing; a good gunfight sounds exactly like a slightly more modern junktown shootout should sound. All of the sounds are directional; this informs us of things which we cannot see but are still relevant to the experience. This mirrors the purpose of sound in our real lives.

Most apparent (and boyishly appealing) to me in my first play through was the sound of the explosions. Instead of the typical roaring explosions you hear in most games, the sounds of fuel barrels, grenades, and gas canisters all have a convincing pop. The explosions have as strong percussiveness that seems very real. In addition to the sound of the explosion itself, an audio affect of temporary sound dampening is used if you are too close to something that explodes. This takes the explosions from mere action eye-candy to events that you don’t just see, you hear and experience.

With the impact good sound design can bring to a game, it is curious how it isn’t a bigger focus of game design and review. Game designers who utilize excellent sound design should be commended. As the graphic curve begins to flatten off, sound design may become more relevant. Until then, this under appreciated element of design will be seen as a nice little bonus but nothing to be expected.

Stunning Victory…An Economics Approach to Game Design (Part II)

October 6th, 2007 by DanB | Posted in Feature | 1 Comment »

In Part I, we discussed how the economic concept of utility can be applied to create a game that provides utility (fun) to the consumer (player). Just as a brief review, utility exists when the product has some value to the consumer. In the case of games, utility comes from the series of events within a game that a player finds engaging. Depending on the nature of the game and the type of consumer, each subsequent event has slightly altered utility. Theory is fine, but to make these principles more accessible and understandable, this article will apply them to a few well-known games.

Game 1 - Dance Dance Revolution (DDR)

DDR appears to be a simple game, due to there being a set amount of moves and the gameplay being relatively constant. But with more examination, we will see that it is actually quite complex. First of all, let us define an event in this game as a single step or combination of steps. A song may contain something in the range of 200-400 steps, depending on song length, difficulty, etc. Each of these steps will require a combination of one or more button presses. With 4 buttons on the pad, this gives us 10 possible single or double button combinations. We can also assume that each single button press is relatively equal in utility to any other single press, just each double button press is relatively equal to any other double button press.

So we have a game that consists of many events of either two utility values (single or double), coming in high speed. At first glance, it would seem as though this game would have utility problems due to being so simple. But in this case, that isn’t son. The game creates utility by varying the events so that each time they are used, they lose no utility from repeat consumption. This game could be seen as a steady flow of utility with relatively low variation. Utility is gained steadily, at a fairly constant rate.

Game 2 - Final Fantasy X (FFX)

Final Fantasy X consists of two main parts, divided into many, many smaller and complex parts. Part 1 is combat, Part 2 is what we can call adventuring, or the activities leading up to combat. The interesting thing about this game’s genre (RPGs) is that the user has more control over the events than other styles of games. The game is full of choices, allowing the user to pick (within the game’s rules) the events that provide them the most utility. Within each of these types of events, there are subsets that vary the utility even more (i.e., normal vs. “boss” monsters), decreasing the chance of utility decreasing due to over-usage of an event. For example, a player may choose to kill monsters, then go back to town and do shopping, and once that is done they may play a minigame. By allowing the user to change events when the utility begins to dimish, the player is able to maximize the utility of all the events.

Compared to DDR (a long series of pre-set, stable events), FFX consists of many choices of events that the user can control. This could be seen as a series of events that are selected by the user for their utility value. This value will come in groups as the user transitions between various events and sub-events.

Using these two contrasting examples, it’s easy to see that utility via events can be obtained in different styles. Depending on the type of game, the expectations of the player, and the design of the game, different styles can deliver comparable results in radically different ways.

Breakdown: Shadow of the Colossus

September 30th, 2007 by DanB | Posted in Games | 2 Comments »

I. Premise

There aren’t many games that compare to Shadow of the Colossus.  This game comes at players offering utility in a way few other games have. Many games try to create utility by modifying a traditional mechanic of gameplay. For example, the recent Prince of Persia games tried to modify the action-adventure formula by adding in the concept of time manipulation. Shadow of the Colossus comes at this idea of modifying tradition in a completely different way. Instead of modifying the mechanics, they modified the premise.

The concept of the boss battle is a long-running gaming tradition, stretching all the way back to the beginning of gaming itself. Fight through a level full of lesser threats and obstacles to get to the boss, an enemy that is much more challenging and powerful than any other. These bosses exist in Shadow of the Colossus, in relatively standard forms. What has changed is the premise of how you get to these bosses. No longer do you have to slag your way through armies of weak minions and slight obstacles. The only obstacle between you and these massive enemies is the landscape you must travel to find them. This eliminates a part of the game that could be considered filler, and packs in more of the events that are traditionally seen as high utility.

II. Scale

This idea begs the question, “How can the enemies be considered ‘bosses’ if there are no ‘normal’ enemies to compare them to?” The answer to the question is the most interesting element of the game: the scale. We are used to enemies being larger than our characters. In almost every genre, size relationships between characters and enemies denote some type of challenge. In the case of Shadow of the Colossus, the designers have taken this relationship to the extreme.

So back to the question: how can these enemies be bosses if they are also the standard enemies? Simple, because they are utterly massive. I can’t think of any other game that portrays discrepancy in scale so strikingly. The smallest of the Colossus is larger than the ultimate enemies of most games. Even though the Colossi are the standard enemy, they are so mythically large that the battles take on a sense of intensity and heroism that is distinct to the traditional boss battle. This incredible sense of scale completely changes the way players see their foes in the game.

III. Summary

Shadow of the Colossus has an interesting blend of unique premise and massive scale. It is almost the antithesis of the traditional action-adventure in that it trades a lot of premise action for a few completely epic boss battle moments. It also goes to show that there is room for genre bending while still following the traditions that already exist. I would love to see more games challenge tradition as much as Shadow of the Colossus has.

Stunning Victory…An Economics Approach to Game Design (Part I)

September 26th, 2007 by DanB | Posted in Feature | 1 Comment »

I have always been intrigued by the intangibles in gaming. How can a few pixels on a relatively small screen give us such an adrenaline rush or feeling of tension? How can a few little lights signify the difference between life and death and actually make us feel like this digital dimension matters? It’s all due to the perceived danger, and how we managed to overcome it. Getting Mario over that pit may not accomplish a lot outside of the game, but within its own context, we get gratification from successfully completing events. But a game isn’t just one event, but a series of events. How these events are created and arranged is what I hope to analyze in this article.

To begin with, I should cover the one principle that makes researching this article possible. In economics, utility is the measurement term used when something provides satisfaction to its consumer. For example, if you like hamburgers twice as much as hotdogs, you could say that hamburgers provide you with two utility units while hotdogs provide you with one. You may also say that hamburgers provide you with 200 units while hotdogs provide you with 100. The numbers themselves are arbitrary; the only thing that really matters is the ratios between the various numbers. Utility has no absolute value; the utility of an entity can only have meaning if it is compared to other entities using the same scale.

How does this apply to a video game? Think of an event as a single serving product. A gamer gets satisfaction from an event by experiencing it: this may mean defeating it, experiencing it, obtaining it, etc. If event A is twice as rare as event B, players should gain twice the utility by experiencing it. Simple enough. But what about repeated consumption of event A? Will experiencing event A still be twice as satisfying? Probably not. It may only be ninety, fifty, or even ten percent as satisfying as before. There is a good chance that its utility value may decrease below event B, depending on the exact dynamics of the game.

What does all of this mean in terms of game design? It means that ideally, a game will consist of a series of events that are strategically ordered to provide the most utility from each event. Whether a game has three, ten, or a hundred different events to choose from, the difference between an engaging game and a boring game is how these events are used. Part II will look at a few well-known games and examine how these principles are applied.