Double Buffered

A Programmer’s View of Game Design, Development, and Culture

A Timeline of Western MMO Development

Posted by JZig on February 7, 2010

The recent layoffs at Red 5 Studios lead me to think about the often convoluted history of subscription-based MMO development studios in America and Europe. How many MMOs did EA release and then kill? How did other studios consisting of Ex-Blizzard developers fare? Where did BioWare Austin come from? What’s up with European MMO studios? Seeking to document the answers to those questions and others I started Googling press releases and booted up a copy of Dia. I then produced the possibly useful Timeline reproduced below.

Rectangles indicate company events such as formations and closures, while ellipsoids indicate game releases or closures. The position on the X axis indicates rough time ordering, corresponding to the years below. Solid connecting lines indicate official developer or publisher relationships, while dotted connecting lines indicate migration of key development personnel. For example, the dotted line from UO to Sony Austin basically represents Raph Koster.

I used the internet for sourcing everything, so I make no absolute judgments with regard to accuracy. The dotted line connections are mostly based on press releases that mention key developers being from another studio. If something sticks out as being incorrect, either leave me a comment or send me an email. I’d be happy to forward the Dia file along to anyone who asks for  it.

A Timeline of Western MMO Development

  1. EA has launched 5 MMOs and quickly killed 3 of them.
  2. Ex-Blizzard MMO studios appear to be batting about 1-in-4.
  3. Rich Vogel from BioWare Austin has extensive MMO experience on both SWG and UO.
  4. CCP and FunCom have historically been isolated from the rest of the western MMO development community.

Posted in Game Development | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Demon’s Souls is the most Solo-Friendly MMORPG

Posted by JZig on January 20, 2010

Before I get into anything else, I wanted to mention that Demon’s Souls isn’t nearly as hard as everyone makes it out to be. Sure, you’re basically forced to die as part of the tutorial, but that’s the point. Death is an essential part of the gameplay in Demon’s Souls (DS from now on). It is occasionally an optimal gameplay strategy to find a cliff and jump off it, just so you don’t have to deal with the horrors of actually being alive. I can’t tell if the game is making an artistic statement there or they just didn’t quite think through the World Tendency system. When you die you lose all of your unspent XP (which you can recover with a corpse run), but it is extremely difficult to “lose” anything you’ve actually cashed in. All you lose out on is stuff that wasn’t real in the first place, so it’s way less disheartening than a death in Everquest.

Playing DS is exactly like Soloing an MMORPG. It’s got a compelling open-ended character development system and interesting crafting. You’re mostly living in your own instance of the world, but you can see the literal ghosts of your compatriots around you, simultaneously comforting you and reinforcing the essential loneliness of the universe. You can’t restore from a save if you screw up. Sometimes somebody comes by and ganks you just because. The narrative is a series of cool events and bosses, but is purposefully disjoint and confusing.

So, what’s so great about it? The first key is that the content itself is very precisely crafted. The game is a series of specifically designed dungeons, which are jam packed with content and atmosphere. You quickly learn that if there could possibly be an enemy hiding behind that door, there is. Most of the levels are fairly long, but are structured with a series of unlockable shortcuts that let you divide a level into conquerable subgoals. 90% of the items in the game are important and useful, and you are constantly rewarded with interesting and functionally distinct equipment. Really there’s two axis of development: your character’s stats and your knowledge. You’ll need both to succeed, but you can get help.

The design lineage of DS can be traced back to older difficult games like Tower of Druaga or Nethack. The game is difficult for a very specific reason: it wants you to turn to other people for help. But, the combination of specifically crafted content and modern technology integrates this directly in to the game. As you play the game, you will find notes left by other real players. These notes will mostly be extremely helpful, although sometimes they’re horrible lies. A voting system keeps the notes relevant, and a structured language keeps people on topic. The ghosts of current players and saved deaths of older players fit into this the same way. 99% of people would never be able to make it through the game without help, but the designers KNEW this and embraced it.

Very few people are capable of progressing through the later levels of a game like World of Warcraft at launch without turning to friends or the internet. Most players need some hand holding, and it can either come from the game designer or other players. It turns out if it comes from other players it really builds a sense of community and longevity in to a game, and this is where Demon’s Souls really succeeds. Even though I can’t directly talk to anyone in the crazy phantom realm that DS calls home, I feel close to them. We’re all going through the same trials, and as a group we can learn enough to overcome it all. Unlike real life, I know in the end we’ll succeed and feel deeply satisfied in the process. Everyone who enjoys MMORPGs will find much to love in Demon’s Souls.

Posted in Game Design | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Indie Puzzle Platformers: Never Too Many!

Posted by JZig on January 14, 2010

My last few days have been pretty stressful (YOU try supporting an Open Beta that gets > 20k concurrent users), so I thought I’d jump back into this whole blogging thing by talking about a couple really fun indie games I played over the last week. Much like 75% of all indie games, they’re both 2d Puzzle/Platform hybrids. I blame Braid. They’re both cool and have nice free demos, so you have no excuse to try them out:

Saira

Saira is by the creator of Knytt and Knytt Stories (Nifflas), and is heavily focused on exploration and atmosphere. The premise revolves around being left alone in the universe after a failed teleporter accident and your quest to rebuild the device to find the one other living being who is left. You recover parts for the teleporter (such as the always-exciting Tape) by exploring different planets. Each planet is very distinct visually and features some amazing ambient music and soundscapes. The visual style of the backgrounds is very striking and consists largely of  moving image collages and lots of effective parallax scrolling. The game also takes an exploration-based approach to narrative as well, because you are given the opportunity to craft your own ending in a somewhat interesting way. The story left a lasting impression on me.

The actual gameplay is about half pure platforming and half information puzzles. That platformy bits are heavy on wall jumping and momentum, and I started to really enjoy it by the end. Your camera can be used to take pictures of the environment, which you will often have to mix together to find clues or codes to enter into various disembodied computer terminals. Some of the puzzles can get pretty tricky, although I was stuck for a few minutes because I mistook the letterboxing around the image on my non-widescreen monitor as a wall. Whoops. Oh, and while your ship is traveling between planets you can play non-linear pinball. Right now you can pick up one copy for $12, and a SECOND copy for only $1.50 more, to encourage you to share it with a friend. Get it now!

vvvvvv

I first heard about vvvvvv a few months ago when the IGF entries first got posted. The weird name (and great URL) got made me check it out, but the gameplay video is what got me pumped. The full version came out a few days ago and actually has been getting a bit of press. It’s by Terry Cavanagh, who’s also done a few other cool indie games of note. Anyway, the basic premise of this one is that there’s a spaceship or something and you rescue people. Whatever. Anyway, it’s a more explicitly retro platformer, with a C64 or DOS graphic style and a cool chiptune soundtrack. It’s also deviously difficult.

The gameplay consists of left, right, and one button. Sounds boring, but that button actually flips gravity. This expands the gameplay of the typical jumping puzzle to it’s absolute max. If you need a point of reference it’s kind of like Metal Storm for the NES. Which was sweet. I have to admit I haven’t purchased the full version yet, largely because I barely made it through the demo without exceeding my frustration threshold. It’s $15 of minimalist fun, and I think I’ll pick it up later this week.

Right now I’m listening to the Radio Kanar interstellar station available inside Saira, and now I’m going to go permanently add the soundtrack to my library. I don’t know why the game includes a large selection of hybrid jazz/classical/electronica but I love it.

Posted in Game Design | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Assassin’s Creed 2: Stabbing Through the Heart of the Matter

Posted by JZig on November 30, 2009

Lately I’ve been consuming two works of media dealing with religion, conspiracies, and semiotics in Renaissance-era Italy. One of them is the great novel The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco, and the other is the best and most interesting game of the year, Assassin’s Creed 2 (AC2) by Ubisoft Montreal. It’s the best game this year because it superbly mixes excellent combat and climbing base mechanics with the brilliantly realized open world environment of 15th century Italy, an compelling advancement structure, and a huge variety of memorable moments. If the concept of Assassin’s Creed 1 appealed to you (regardless of rather you enjoyed the mediocre actual game) you will love AC2.

You can read the various rave reviews if you want to know more about the specifics of gameplay, but AC2 is the most interesting game of the year because it brings all of those elements together to create a form of Art that is uniquely suited to the medium of Interactive Games. Before I continue I’ll warn that I’m going to spoil the plot of Assassin’s Creed 1 and the first hour or so of AC2, so you should flee in terror if that’s your thing. You may wish to read the plot summary of AC1 if you never played that game, it has enough flaws that I would not recommend everyone play the first game in the series.

I’ve personally always been enthralled by conspiracy fiction, dating back to growing up on The X Files and Deus Ex (10 years ago already). Today’s world is an interconnected web of complicated events that stretches beyond the means of any one person to truly explain or understand. But, this doesn’t stop us from trying. Dating back to the earliest myths and fables, the human brain has an insatiable desire to form a narrative out of the unfathomable. Regardless of the quality of its writing, The Da Vinci Code and friends are as successful because they directly tap into this deep-seated impulse of the psyche.

Of course not all works in the genre are quite as literal and simple-minded as The Da Vinci Code, and luckily AC2 takes some of it’s influence from more metafictional works such as The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Illuminatus! is a classic of the genre and works because it simultaneously treats conspiracies as deadly serious and a ridiculous joke. It constantly jumps around in perspective, tone, and setting in a way that directly mirrors the complicated and conflicted possible truths that are present in real life conspiracy theories. The 4th wall gets shattered a few times. AC2 has the same goal in mind of mirroring the layered structure of real conspiracies, but manages to do so while maintaining an internally consistent and self contained universe.

In Assassin’s Creed 2 you are simultaneously playing two extremely distinct characters. From his birth you relive the life of Ezio Auditore, a spoiled young noble from Renaissance Florence. Your first few tasks are to instigate some Romeo and Juliet-style gang warfare, flee the wrath of your lover’s parents, and then go for a leisurely walk with your mother. These interactions quickly establish Ezio as a charming but selfish rogue who deeply cares for his family, and cleanly sets up his motivation once things start to inevitably go wrong. Ezio is directly impacted by the events of the real-life Pazzi Conspiracy, which was just ridiculous enough that I assumed it had been invented by the developers. The sensation of climbing the interior of the Duomo in Florence is without peer in the history of gaming.

Despite being the focus of the gameplay, Ezio (and Altair before him) is not a proxy for the player of the game. Instead, Ezio is the proxy for the other character you are simultaneously playing, Desmond Miles. For most of the game Desmond shares an identical perspective to the player. Ezio’s life is playing out in Desmond’s mind through the technology of the Animus, which is a proxy for the very console the game is played on. The HUD, partially dubbed Italian dialogue, and various visual artifacts are explained via this conceit, and bring the necessary artificiality of a game within the context of the world’s fiction. As an example there is a detailed database of relevant real world information available in-game, but it is all written from the biased viewpoint of an extremely cynical British researcher who is a member of your support team.

During the rare sections where you see Desmond from a 3rd person perspective the UI is stripped away, the lighting and visual style is altered, and the movement and controls are simplified. I almost wish these segments were presented from a 1st person perspective, but practical development and control constraints won out in this case. Throughout the game you are playing the role Ezio, but the game tries as hard as possible to make you feel like you ARE Desmond. Even at the expense of making things less fun (Desmond moves irritatingly slowly), by the end of Assassin’s Creed 1 Ubisoft has built a fortified wall between the two characters.

Things get really interesting in AC2 when the wall between Ezio and Desmond (ie, You) slowly disintegrates, via what is named the “Bleeding Effect”.  This starts at the end of AC1 when Desmond uses “Eagle Vision” (ability to visualize hidden information) to notice the cryptic glyphs on the wall of his cell, left by a previous inmate. In AC2 these same glyphs are hidden throughout the world of Ezio and are locked doors to background information on the world. They need to be unlocked by the player/Desmond, and the combination of well-crafted puzzles, non-linear information delivery, and pseudofictional events works wonders. You are actually tracing a conspiracy through history, and I’ve never felt so motivated to continue playing a game. The glyphs are just the start, and the blurring of boundaries is put to great dramatic effect later in the game.

Another unique element of the game is its approach to moral philosophy. The literal Assassin’s Creed of the game is a phrase attributed (likely incorrectly) to Hassan-i Sabbah, the founder of the historical Hashshashins: Nothing is true, Everything is permitted. Both Altair and Ezio are the embodiment of Deconstruction as they fight against the autocratic constructions of the Templars, who are attempting to build a peaceful and orderly world at all costs. Both have to go “beyond morals”, which is a concept I find very interesting. Morals are great abstract rules to live your life by, but the game makes the argument that if it can be empirically proven that someone must die for the greater good, then it is right to do the killing. This same utilitarian approach shows in the game’s general disdain for organized religions of all types, which is more explicit then I can remember seeing in any Western game (Japanese culture has a long history of distrusting organized religion). The game doesn’t dwell on this for an extended time period, but the Codex pages and circumstances of the ending make the viewpoint obvious.

The peaceful feeling of walking through a town square in 15th century Italy, the thrilling and ambiguous act of ending the life of a despot, the uncovering of the threads of conspiracy that explain EVERYTHING, and the disquiet of embodying two characters at the same time. These are sensations that can only be delivered by a video game, and realistically could never have been delivered before this generation. While other games like Uncharted 2 are striving to be beautiful collections of vaguely interactive cut scenes, Assassin’s Creed 2 is taking games, and Art as a whole, to where it has never been before. Many in the industry worry about the failure of commercial publishers to produce games that have Meaning, but it is games like Assassin’s Creed 2 that give me hope for the future of the medium. Everyone who cares about games as an art form, or just really enjoys a well designed game, absolutely needs to play Assassin’s Creed 2.

Posted in Game Design | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Why I’m Not Buying Modern Warfare 2

Posted by JZig on November 11, 2009

I was a pretty big fan of Call of Duty 4. I wasn’t going to buy it originally, but a bunch of guys at work started regularly playing at lunch and convinced me to pick it up over Steam. I ended up really enjoying the single player (I still remember the emotional impact of a certain death scene), and played probably 60 hours or so of the multiplayer. It’s probably my second favorite recent FPS after Team Fortress 2, so I was really looking forward to Modern Warfare 2. But as the game has now been released, I’m not going to buy it. I’m not boycotting it or anything, it just turns out there’s never been a game I was actively interested in that presented so many compelling reasons for me to not buy it. Here’s just what I can think of off the top of my head:

  1. I like many games on console, but not FPSs. Too many years of mouse control and a lack of fine finger control mean I really can’t enjoy games like MW2 on a console. This was not a problem for the first game, though, as it had a perfectly good PC version
  2. I’ve experienced nothing but pain with peer-to-peer networked games on the PC. P2P works perfectly fine on a console because everyone has a standardized console and networking settings. On a PC, you have to deal with software firewalls, network drivers, and dedicated hackers. As a consequence any game that relies on P2P server hosting (like the disaster that was Demigod) is going to be  a pain to use. I much prefer the approach Valve took, with just providing a bunch of standardized dedicated servers for the community.
  3. 9 vs. 9 just isn’t enough players. I’ve never been a fan of 32 vs. 32 clusters, but personally I find 12 vs. 12 to be my favorite size of match, going back to how I used to play Counterstrike. Even given the change to P2P hosting, I don’t see why larger matches couldn’t be optionally allowed
  4. Hardcore is mode I enjoy playing the most. You now can’t play hardcore mode at all until you unlock it at a certain level. Ugh.
  5. I’m way too busy playing Dragon Age right now. Damn that game is good.
  6. Even if I wanted to buy it now, I actually can’t. For some bizarre reason the Steam-distributed version of MW2 isn’t out until Thursday. The stupid part is that the retail PC version came out today and uses all of the same steam-based authentication as the digital version. Huh? Someone screwed up somewhere, and this doesn’t make me very confident about the support for the digital version.
  7. The F.A.G.S. promo video. What the hell was Infinity Ward thinking? I don’t want to consume the product of a company that is either willfully offensive or just incredibly stupid. I’m still confused by what they were trying to do with this one.
  8. Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?
    Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.” Those are some pretty awesome custom features! Wish I was making this one up.
  9. Activision/Infinity Ward has been ridiculously secretive about the game. There’s been no demo (which was especially needed on PC because of the changes to networking), and they only released the review embargo AFTER the game was already on sale. When movie studios do this it’s because a film is crap, but in this case it’s being done to artificially raise early review scores (previous example being GTA 4, which did the exact same thing). The people running this game are obsessed with controlling information and access to the game, and that does not make me feel very invited as a player.
  10. It’s $60. The original Modern Warfare, and essentially all PC games for the last 10 years, was $50 new. Activision has decided that MW2 is objectively better than all other PC games including it’s prequel, and thus we should be HAPPY to have to pay more. As I’ve said before this isn’t how pricing works. As soon as a game is over $30 or so (conveniently the price of a Borderlands and L4D2 4 pack), I personally feel an urge to do a value calculation. It’s normally a bit tricky, but paying $10 more for a game that has significantly FEWER features that matter to me is just a bad idea.

To be honest I don’t even care about most of the things the hardcore PC FPS community cares about (I don’t love server browsers, and never used any of the crazier options like FOV control or server mods), but I could easily come up with 10 different reasons to not buy this game. The only plausible explanation I can think of for this strategy is that someone at Activision or Infinity Ward has been wanting to prove that the PC market is dead, and decided to use this game as an example. When the thing fails to sell on PC (I don’t know anyone who’s picked it up on PC yet), they’ll then be able to point at the sales and exclaim “See! I knew it wouldn’t sell!”. It’s not just laziness, because they could have easily just done a direct modification of the PC part of MW1 and I would be perfectly happy. This is a conscious decision on someone’s part, and if they don’t want me to play their game I guess I’ll have to oblige. I may pick it up if it drops to $30 on a Steam sale, but there is no way I am paying $60 for an inferior sequel to an excellent game I already own.

Posted in Game Development | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Red Faction Guerrilla: It Feels Good To Be A Space Asshole

Posted by JZig on October 26, 2009

I finished Red Faction: Guerrilla (RFG) a week ago and had been meaning to write up my thoughts. I thoroughly enjoyed my experience but I was finally spurred to do by the release of the music video Space Asshole by Chris Remo of Idle Thumbs. I’ll wait while you go you watch it. I’m not in a hurry.

There are two components to RFG that come together to build an entirely unique experience:  a unprecedented engine that allows the complete destruction of all man made objects in a huge environment, and a structure that gives you the ability and motivation to engage in that destruction yourself. RFG is part of an elite group of games that simply could not exist before this generation of hardware (along with Dead Rising and a few other physics-based titles). When you swing your giant sledgehammer at the load bearing wall of a building, it explodes in such a realistic way that it brings the same cathartic joy as watching that printer scene from Office Space. It’s long been known by game designers that Destruction is the simplest expression of Power, and RFG is the perfect consummation of that trend.

The game as a whole is well made, but there are a few weird missions. RFG is a game that was built to allow Moments of gameplay instead of a smooth curve of polish. But, I experienced a few moments that will live on in my memory for years to come. The first one was during a demolition mission where you had to take down a fifty-floor skyscraper. The narrative-breaking demolition missions (good, I was getting a bit tired of it) give you a preset number of weapons to destroy a given building. For the skyscraper mission you get 4 huge rockets and 30 shots of a disintegration rifle, which is normally enough to quickly devastate anything in the game. I shot the 4 rockets at the 4 supports of the building, but they wouldn’t give. I had hit the first indestructible objects in the entire game, which was a bit of a shock. I looked around for alternate solutions and noticed the very top of the sky scraper was incomplete. I then zoomed in my disintegration rifle to get a close lock at the connections between the main supports and the spire of the skyscraper, and saw there was only about 12 connections. 14 or so shots later there was a loud creaking noise as the roof titled a bit to the left, where it rested to my disappointment. Suddenly the structural integrity was lowered enough that the roof started falling straight down, where it proceeded to pulverize anything below it, myself included. I then used the giant rockets to finish off the straggling 9th floor, and barely reached enough destruction to clear the level. I had destroyed a massive monument to man with only my bare hands… and a few nanotechnology-infused weapons. I was proud.

And then I started to feel a bit guilty. The game has all sort of vague plot explanations for why I was supposed to be destroying massive skyscrapers (they were uninhabited! and owned by an evil government!) but I still felt a bit like a virtual terrorist. I felt as empowered as perhaps I have ever felt (although the plasma tank in RFG felt just as empowering in a different way), which in retrospect is a bit sad and scary. RFG speaks to the primal urge to leave your mark by burning it into the flesh of earth (Where the Wild Things are, which I saw last night, understands that same urge). It was a unique and unrivaled experience, and for me at least raw destruction has lost a bit of it’s novelty. There’s nothing left to break, time to see games worry about making things instead.

Posted in Game Design | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Batman Arkham Asylum: Greater Than Its Parts

Posted by JZig on September 16, 2009

I just finished playing Batman: Arkham Asylum and it’s probably the best game I’ve played all year. I’m not alone in heaping praise, but I mean Best in a very specific sense. It’s not my favorite game of the year (others have left deeper emotional impact) it’s not the most interesting or innovative, and it’s not given me the most total enjoyment (hard to beat Fallout 3 there), but it’s the best-constructed game I’ve played in a long time. First of all, it’s technically and artistically proficient and uses the Unreal engine extremely well. Secondly it has a good set of base mechanics (brawling and stalking are both individually fun) and a well designed collection metagame. Thirdly the narrative is well written and presented. Many good games have excellent individual components, but what makes Arkham Asylum a GREAT game is the way the design brings together these disparate elements together into something greater than the sum of it’s parts.

The key to this is the pacing and flow of the different components. The game starts out with some sweet atmosphere and character development as you bring joker into the high-security area of the prison, in a scene that is highly reminiscent of the start of Escape from Butcher Bay (nothing wrong with that). From there, it transitions into your first combat scene which teaches you the basics while also instantly establishing that Batman is a badass. Then you do some duct-crawling before stalking and taking down a lethal enemy. Finally, you get the last piece of the puzzle as the Riddler Challenge metagame is introduced, which wraps the whole thing into a compelling Metroid sandwich. From then on it simply alternates linearly placed story/brawl/stalk sections while allowing you to indulge in more free-form exploration at your leisure. Hours 1 through 10 of the game follow an identical structure, but it never gets old. Why not?

It’s obvious that this game went through a lot of playtesting. The secret to why it works is that I never once thought “I am tired of doing what I am doing”. As soon as you finished a tense fight there was always a break before the next brawl, letting the lessons you’d learned sink in while you stalked some fools. Even better, the variety is doled out at a masterful rate. After playing the demo I was worried the stalking would get repetitive, but every single encounter has something new to deal with (stupid exploding gargoyles). For the entire game, there is ALWAYS something new to learn and apply. The high-tech prison environment of the first section changes into what I am convinced is the largest variety of environments that is theoretically possible given the setting. There is no frustrating artificial difficulty curve, the progression in the game mechanics comes naturally from more components being available at once. Arkham Asylum is exactly as long as it needs to be and is almost entirely lacking unnecessary filler.

The clearest evidence that the pacing is key is available inside the game itself. Once you beat the main narrative you can complete the rest of the exploration metagame on it’s own, and it became way less compelling without thugs to beat up and the taunting of the Joker (also I think there are about 25% too many collectibles). There are also separate brawling and stalking challenges that extract those components, but I quickly grew bored. It started feeling more like the game I played immediately before and after Arkham, Uncharted. Uncharted features similarly excellent components, but it tends to clump exploration, narrative, and shooting sections into large repetitive clumps with weird difficulty spikes. The odds are I’ll never finish it despite it’s many positive qualities. On the other hand, I played through Arkham Asylum in 3 very long sessions because I didn’t want to stop. Unlike the vague addiction that comes from playing an MMO, I didn’t keep playing because I HAD to, I kept playing because I wanted to see what would happen next. It never disappointed me.

Posted in Game Design | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PAX ‘09 Was Pretty Great, In Case You Were Wondering

Posted by JZig on September 7, 2009

I just got back from Penny Arcade Expo 2009 (first time for me), and it was probably the greatest weekend of my life so far. I’ve had better single days, but on average PAX reigned supreme, which says more about my life than PAX. Anyway it was pretty rad. Awesome things:

  1. Everyone was basically cool. Gamers may be a bit confrontational on the internet, but get them together in person and it’s a giant love fest. Essentially everyone I saw looked extremely happy to be there (except for a small number of booth babe who were out of place), and hygiene was of an acceptable level. I was expecting awkward conversations with antisocial nerds, but I guess all the REALLY antisocial ones were too afraid to come. Most of the game booths were staffed by actual developers, and I talked to a few of them about random dev stuff. You can’t beat the vibe of 70,000 people who want to be exactly where they are.
  2. I went to an Idle Thumbs meetup (spot the side of my head in one of the photos!), and it was pretty sweet. Got fairly drunk at the Taphouse Grill (they were awesome for letting 30 nerds crash their party room with no advance notice), and talked to a variety of loud but interesting people. Turned down a free copy of Trine because I already had it. Met one of the developers of Sol Survivor, which I played the next day and was pretty fun.
  3. The Live Brodeo Reunion rocked. I don’t see any links to the video or audio yet, but if you enjoyed the old GFW show you are required to check it out. It was awkward for about the first 5 minutes, but after the dramatic reading of Anime Diaper forum posts it loosened up. It then rambled for about 2 hours, in the exact way I wanted it to. The Q&A questions were either good, or so bad that everyone made fun of them. Jazz English might feel bad though.
  4. Paul and Storm tore down the place at the Saturday concert. They were the opening band for Jonathan Coulton and I’d never heard of them before so had no expectations. What transpired was an hour of ridiculously funny comedy music, that worked due to the crowd being totally in to it. The PAX crowd is the most open to audience participation that I’ve ever witnessed, and instead of coming off as contrived and weird the energy made everything work. Honestly, Coulton was a massive letdown after them and I kind of left halfway through.
  5. The variety of fun games was ridiculous. A group of us from work entered a TF2 tournament (won first round, got slaughtered second round). I played some Marble Madness for NES. Cthulhu Munchkin and Nuclear War were played. I watched Spiderman dance on stage at Ubisoft’s booth (because, why not). I played some No More Heroes 2, which looks sweet and will be a day one purchase. I looked over the shoulders of people playing Diablo 3, Borderlands, Left 4 Dead 2, and Mass Effect 2, all of which looked like lots of fun. I participated in pictochat discussions of pirates before the Monkey Island panel. I like all forms of gaming, and all forms of gaming were well represented.

Sometimes it’s a bit hard to explain why I love working on video games, but there is now a succinct and powerful explanation: PAX. I’ve been to other nerd cons in the past, but I’ve always felt a bit out of place due to not really caring about comics or fantasy novels, but the whole weekend I couldn’t get over the feeling that PAX was created explicitly for me. Okay, me and a growing mass of people who all derive deep and lasting satisfaction out of what I do for a living. Much like Woodstock was, I can honestly say that PAX is the statement and embodiment of a unique culture. It has already outgrown Penny Arcade itself and it will immanently outgrow related internet nerdom (still don’t get the Wil Wheaton thing). We’re probably at the point where (like Woodstock again) the culture will quickly outgrow a single venue, so I advise everyone to check out PAX before it’s too late. I’ll gladly go again next year, but I can’t help but think that this year was something special, never to be repeated. I hope I’m wrong.

Posted in Game Culture | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Coding on the Edge: How To Survive

Posted by JZig on August 18, 2009

In the theoretical “well run company” there will never be a situation where you, the programmer, will have to write incredibly critical code under extreme time pressure. These companies are either extremely boring or quickly go out of business. In today’s exciting world of Online Game Development, this is inevitable and is known as “launch”. Now, not everyone will have to engage in this practice  but anyone working on infrastructure or performance will find themselves suddenly under heavy demand a few weeks before any big update. I suggest running away. If you’re better at programming then you are at running away (I’m very bad at running away) here’s some advice that may help you out when you have to write 5,000 lines of mission critical code in 2 days:

  1. Channel the Rage: The reason you have to work 70 hours this week is inevitably because someone screwed up. It could be you, a coworker, or a third party, but the cause is going to be a mix of forseeable and unforseeable mistakes. Feel free to note your theories on the personal failings that brought you here, but until things are actually working there’s really no point in complaining to anyone about it. There is no way to keep track of all the possible issues involved with an online game, so missing something critical just means you are human. Whatever anger you feel about the cause of the situation, you want to focus it towards the code itself and not who wrote it. Anger is a pretty good short-term motivator
  2. Focus Your Efforts: Programmers already have a hard time dealing with distractions and interruptions, but during a crisis this gets even harder. When there are 5 critical things going wrong at once, the natural inclination is to try and work on all 5 at once. However, this just means you’ll fail to fix 5 critical issues. Try to pick a problem that you think matches well with your skill set and coordinate with other programmers to get the rest managed or delayed. Departmental divisions and work politics should be basically discarded at this point, because no (sane) person will complain about your rudeness while the world is on fire.
  3. Enforce Breaks: When you have a lot of work to be done in a short period of time, you need to be careful to give your brain some time to relax. The relaxation time between hard crunching is often when you realize the insight that can save you 6 hours of horrible manual debugging. I like to code/debug for 3 hours or so at a time during crunch, and it’s hard to beat video games for breaktime. Also, you NEED to get at least some sleep. Never work on less than 6 hours of sleep, the amount of bugs you add when tired will cost you far more time then you gain by skipping sleep
  4. Assume You Are Stupid: I generally like to design for ease of debugging, but this is absolutely critical during crisis.  When you write code under pressure the odds of you making a mistake are higher, and your code should be structured with this in mind. Whenever you add in a new feature make it run-time switchable at the expense of code simplicity. Add in all the logging you can think of. All forms of cleverness should be strictly banned. I’m not normally into code review or pair programming, but when you’re tired you NEED someone else’s eyes on your code. One of you will figure out the part you screwed up.

Finally, there has to be a point where the crisis Ends. If a company tries to make you crunch for more than a month at a time, you’re at a company that doesn’t either doesn’t understand how programmers work, or is completely incompetent at scheduling. It can definitely be exciting and rewarding to put in long hours and accomplish the impossible, but you WILL burn out. But, hey, I guess some people like the burning out part?

Posted in Game Development | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The Irrationality of Pricing

Posted by JZig on August 5, 2009

Digital distribution has brought many massive improvements to the world of gaming. It’s generally made things easier to buy and opened up exciting new business opportunities. However, it has brought with it one giant item of confusion: Pricing. Up until about 4 or 5 years ago pricing of games was generally pretty simple and uniform ($50 +- $10 depending on platform, or $20 if your game was explicitly budget-priced). It was this way because of the combination of distribution cost and inertia. In contrast, pricing and perceived value in today’s world is all over the place. You get weirdness like Trine PC being $10 more than Trine for PS3, despite the fact that the PC version doesn’t require a royalty payment to Sony. Peggle is $5 on the iPhone, $10 on Steam, and $20 on Popcap’s own site, despite being an identical game and all being digital. And I haven’t even gotten to DLC yet, where the pricing is so random and the users so confused that it leads to random accusations of developer cheating when blogs misunderstand the small size of executable code. The platform owners, the publishers, the developers, the press, and the users all claim they know the RIGHT way to price and value gaming content in today’s world, but they’re all wrong. There are at least 4 completely distinct ways of pricing and valuing games, and they’re mostly incompatible.

One value model is based on cost of production. The theory here is that the more expensive something is to produce, the more you should charge for it. It makes intuitive sense to developers and publishers, but the gaming public has no concept of how expensive games are to produce and will be upset when their guesses about relative development costs are wrong. The user-preferred equivalent to tieing it to development cost is tieing it to hours of gameplay. Many players (especially the younger set with more time then money) value playing time strongly, which is where that nebulous and always incorrect “replay value” number comes from in reviews. The negative effect of this value model is that it tends to lead to games that are artificially lengthened and have shitty superflous multiplayer modes. A third model is to price and value games relative to similar and successful already released games. This works well for clones within existing genres and on established platforms (ie, this is why everythins is $50), but is no help for new genres or platforms. This means that it’s even harder to get new genres and platforms approved for publishing. The last model is to make a pricing decision purely based on achieving maximum total profit, which is possible because the physical cost is very low. Assuming a neglible distribution cost (ie, old PC games on Steam) selling 100,000 copies of a game at $5 is better than selling 40,000 copies at $10, but not as good as selling 30,000 copies at $20. The problem with this approach is that the empirical data for this is really lacking (Valve desperately needs to release comprehensive sales numbers for steam games), pricing for the maximal short term profit can lead to customers feeling ripped off and lower your profits on future releases.

So what happens when these pricing models interact? Developers and platform holders always trot out “increased development costs” to explain the rise in game prices, but this model makes the least sense out of the 4. Frankly, development costs have no useful relationship to final game quality, given the long history of high-cost flops in our industry. Why should the end user care at all about how hard the game was to make? Every time someone in the industry tries to use production costs to justify price it just irritates users. Never say this. Beyond that one, the other 3 models are all fairly reasonable. Given theoretical economics the pure-profit model is always the best, but that ignores the significant psychological drawbacks to it. Ask Hellgate London if player anger over perceived pricing disparity can be a problem for a game. It’s a great model for pricing re-releases of old games, though. Basically, you want to balance economic optimization against player expectations. Players go in with expectations of pricing relative to other games (and some relative to other time-taking entertainment activities), and if you don’t meet those expectations players are going to be unhappy. If the price is too low some people won’t buy it out of suspicion, and if it’s too high players who can easily afford it won’t because they don’t want to feel ripped off. The worst part is, given the huge variation on value in today’s market no matter WHAT price you pick it will be compared to an existing product and will not meet the expectations of some percentage of players. Given today’s market, I think the best solution is probably to be as transparent as possible about your pricing, in an attempt to manage player expectations. Given that there are no unified standards for valuing games, you want to ease them into whatever pricing decision you do make.

Posted in Game Development | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »