Gaming Innovation: The Dark Age of Gaming?
I’m a relatively hard core gamer. I’ve played video games for ages and have owned nearly every console ever made. I say nearly every console, but there are some I’ve chosen not to own. Specifically, the Vectrex, the Neo Geo and the Atari Jaguar, just to name a few. Basically, lesser consoles that really didn’t go anywhere. I digress.
Necessity is the mother of invention
Entertainment is a huge business. With music, movies, books and theater, it was inevitable that when electronic technology was invented, someone would find a way to use it for entertainment value. Enter Nolan Bushnell who created the first commercially sold arcade video game. Albeit, not the first coin operated video game. Needless to say, after that the race was on. Magnavox was the first to the home market with their Magnavox Odyssey console without sound and which included a game similar to the later Atari Pong.
These early video games sparked a revolution in home electronic entertainment that leads us up to video games we play today. From the widescreen hardcore franchises such as Call of Duty, Halo, Assassin’s Creed, Grand Theft Auto, Zelda and Need for Speed to the massively online multiplayer systems of World of Warcraft to the small screen games like Farmville and Angry Birds. We have tons of options for entertaining ourselves with video games. All of these games are massive leaps ahead of Pong, Space Invaders, Defender and Battle Zone of years long past.
Waxing Nostalgic
I look fondly on these past video games for a lot of reasons. They were inventive and different. The developers were always trying to find a new way to bring their idea to that small 4:3 arcade screen. And ‘wow’ us they did with such inventive titles as Gauntlet, Paperboy, Battle Zone, Marble Madness, Joust, Sinistar, Dig Dug and even Donkey Kong. Simplistic games, yes, but challenging, unique and different. These were games that really defied categorization other than being ‘level based’, but just about every game today has levels. These spurred our imagination and let us meld into that video game world for a short time and then move to another one with a completely different concept. To take our minds off of whatever it was we were doing. Yes, these were all arcade games, but they were inventive, unique and different. In fact, during the arcade heyday, it was rare to find games copying each other.
Lack of Inventiveness
Gone are those unique inventive days where you could walk into an arcade and find something new, original and unique to play. Today, it’s all about the almighty buck. Well, 60 of them actually. It’s less about producing something inventive and more about producing something developers think kids will buy. Developers have lost their inventive edge.
Today, games are categorized into genres:
- First Person Shooter (FPS)
- Third Person Shooter (TPS)
- Rail Shooter
- Sports: Hockey, Football, Basketball, Snowboarding, Skateboarding, Surfing, Hunting/Fishing
- Online Multiplayer (MMO)
- Campaign based
- Button Masher (aka Fighting)
- Real Time Simulation (RTS)
- Music
- 2D side scroller
- Role Playing
- Open World (the most rare type of games)
- Simulation
- …
There are rarely any games today that break or even attempt to break these molds. Occasionally, something comes along that tries to think different like Naughty Bear, Traxxpad or Rez. Or, games that try to combine genres like Grand Theft Auto (mission based with free roaming) in a unique way. But, these games are so few that you might not even see one per year.
Talent Drought?
I’m beginning to wonder what’s going on with developers. Are they really so adamant that the above genres is all there is? Have we lost our ability to invent new things? Are we moving into a new self-inflicted Dark Age? I’m not talking about not having entertainment, no. I’m talking about that we as a society have become so jaded, that we won’t accept any new ideas in games? Personally, I want to see more Pongs, Defenders and Marble Madnesses. Not specifically these games, but the idea that these games represent. That is, something new, unique and different.
Take Portal and Portal 2, for instance. These are a completely unique and different take on the first person shooter. This game has also become a commercial success in its own right. It’s a mostly non-violent game built on a relatively unique story, puzzles and lots of humor. The game itself involves challenging puzzles. These games are from Gabe Newell’s Valve. I’ve always found that Valve’s games tend to involve more unique ideas and less trying to fit molds. Valve, unfortunately, is mostly the odd-man-out. The development cycles are extremely long for games from Valve. It might take 5 years to release the next installment. But, I’m willing to wait 5 years to get a unique game experience that’s unlike anything else I’ve ever played.
Unfortunately, most game developers today just want to make the next quick buck instead of putting out award winning high quality unique gaming experiences. This leaves the gaming market fairly high, dry and devoid of unique games.
What’s left are the Batman Arkhams of the world which always inevitably come down to being a button masher after everything is said and done. Yes, they wrap the Batman games around a seemingly open world, but when it comes down to the final boss, it’s just another glorified fighting game. I don’t want yet another reason to get carpal tunnel. I want to have a unique gaming experience. I want to be challenged not by how fast I mash my thumb against a button, but how I can think strategically. How I can take down the final enemy on my own terms, not on the video game designer’s terms.
Inventiveness Reignited
Basically, give me open worlds to roam. Give me tools to use in that world. Let me level up as I gain experience in the world. Give me stores where I can buy things. Let me even buy the stores themselves. Let me earn money to spend. But don’t force me into a final boss sequence that requires me to follow a script. If you’re going to give me an open world, give it to me all the way. Let me make my own final boss choices. Let me decide how to deal with the final boss on my own terms. Give me the tools to deal with him or her as I see fit. If you provide cages and I choose to lock the boss in a cage and send that cage off to a prison, that’s my ending choice. If I choose to have a final button masher battle, my choice. If I choose a strategic battle systematically wiping out all of the boss’s advantages, my choice. If I choose to befriend them and go off with them into the sunset, my choice. Open world means open world and all that goes with that.
Choice is what we have in life. Taking that away in video games and forcing a contrived outcome during the final moments is just not inventive. It’s trite. It’s cliche. It’s frustrating. We’ve spent hours getting to that point only to find out that the final battle is basically a complete waste of time. That the ending is ‘stupid’.
No, simply provide the gaming tools. That’s all the game needs to do. Let the gamer choose the final outcome entirely. Sure, you can tie in some befitting movie ending dialog sequence, that’s fine. But, how I choose to end my game should be my choice, not some game developer’s choice who was sitting in a room miles away and months ago making that decision. Let me make my own decisions, my own choices which result in my own outcomes. I realize that games need to have some form of rules, so there are limits to what can be provided. But, within those limits, let me choose how to use them all. Don’t rope me into a small area, don’t take away all of my advantages that I earned, don’t throw 40 men at me and expect me to button mash them all out of existence in a few minutes. Again, I don’t need aching joints and to inflame the median nerve running down my hand. Give me strategic options. Let me utilize the tools I’ve spent hours obtaining through the game to my own full strategic advantage. Giving me all of those tools and then taking them all away only to force a 40 man fight is worthless, frustrating and not at all inventive.
Even Better Ideas?
Better, give me games that break FPS/TPS molds. Give me games where the idea is completely unique. There are many ways to devise video games in 3D worlds that don’t involve the tired FPS mold. I want new unique games. Games that involve strategic thinking, unique environments, unique character traits (super powers of my choice). As an example, how about a superhero role playing game? Let me choose my character’s traits, history, powers, good vs evil, etc. Let me choose the outcomes that unfolds. Let me write my own story and outcomes?
How about a game within a game? The gamer becomes a gamer within the game and who gets lost in that video game world only to work his/her way back out? There are lots of cool story ideas. It’s the stories here that matter, the gaming aspect is just the tool to get it there.
Basically, we need inventive new unique gaming experiences that do not presently exist. I want to see games that are today as inventive as Pong was back in its day. Games that inspire gamers to think, rather than blindly mash buttons. I like thinking and strategy games within an action framework. Not so much puzzles as in pulling ropes to open doors, but even more unique then that. Let’s get some new ideas flowing into the gaming world. It’s definitely time.
Where are all the games?
Unfortunately, there is a major game drought today. We have many many consoles today: PS3, Xbox, PS Vita, Wii U and even the iPad, yet we’re firmly stuck playing the ‘AA’ titles which are neither inventive nor unique. In fact, most of them are rehashes of rehashes. Things that we’ve both played before and will likely play again. I don’t want to play games I’ve already played. I want to play new unique games. Games that I look at and think, “Wow, this is cool. I’ve never played something like that”. I don’t want to get to the end only to find out that I’m trapped in the ever-so-familiar button masher. I want strategic choices to the outcomes. Games should actually reward players for the most unique ways to end the game.
Even though we have only just ended out 2012 and there were many titles released at the end of 2012, not many of them were truly imaginative titles. Yes, there were highlights in some games, but most of them are far too often been-there-done-that experiences.
Even though EA, Atari, Capcom and the other big gaming companies are out there working to produce new games, they’re just not providing quality original games. They’re providing, at best, copies of previously released and rehashed game ideas. Nearly every one of those big game company games is boring within the first day of play. It’s too easy to get stuck into a firm set of rules that force the player into silly and frustrating game play. If the bosses end up being simple button mashers only to provide the same enemies wave after wave, what makes development companies think that this is what gamers really want? After a while it just becomes mindless, monontonous and boring. The point to entertainment is to entertain. There is nothing entertaining about tedium, frustration and boredom. It’s no wonder I see a lot of gamers posting ‘I’m bored’ on forums even when they own games like Call of Duty. Yes, they are boring.
I suggest that by bringing back inventiveness, uniqueness and originality in games, a whole lot more people will become interested in games and we will become, once again, entertained.
Resident Evil 6: Complete disappointment
As you may or may not know, I also like gaming. Specifically, RPG and first and third person shooters. Well, at least some first and third person shooters, anyway. Whether I like it depends on how it’s done. In this case Resident Evil 6 is not done well at all.
Resident Evil Franchise
Even though this game series has turned into a fairly hefty cash cow for both Milla Jovovich (and hubby) in the celluloid format, the games have been relatively uninspired for the last several years. The last really good Resident Evil game was RE4 and that was years ago. Well, I’m sad to say that Resident Evil 6 is a complete and total disappointment in the gaming department. Capcom just can’t figure this out. For whatever reasons, the developers over at Capcom Japan just aren’t with the program.
The absolute best game of this franchise is still, bar none, Resident Evil 4. This game had all the makings of turning the franchise into a smash hit. Unfortunately, the game developers decided to try something new with whole tag-along partner thing in RE5 which failed miserably, by the way. That game was an unmitigated disaster. It had no depth, the story was boring, the fights were stupid and the fact that you had to keep your partner alive in the middle of the fights was asinine. There was no fun to be had with that game at all.
You’d think Capcom could have figured out that the reason Resident Evil 5 flopped so badly was that it was just so poorly done. Yet, here we are with Resident Evil 6 bringing in much of the boring and silly storylines from 5 even though Leon is heading this chapter up. It’s unfortunate, too. This could have been such a great addition if Capcom had even minimally listened to its fanbase. No, they did their own thing again and assumed this is what we wanted in a game. They could not have been more wrong.
Seriously, Resident Evil 6 doesn’t even have a pause button!?!? You can’t even pause the effing game. I mean, seriously? Why not? Every other game on the planet has figured out how to pause, why is Resident Evil 6 the exception? You can’t even step away to go take a pee without some zombies nailing you. What fun is there in that?
Worse, when you restart the game, it takes you back almost an entire chapter just to begin again. You can’t even start at the point where you left off. Seriously, this is one extremely badly designed game. On top of just these stupid design issues, the gameplay is sluggish, awkward and the collision detection is some of the worst I’ve seen in a game in a very long time.
No awards for this turd
As much as Capcom seems to think this is some award winning thing, it’s a festering piece of feces covered in flies. It has no redeeming value at all. This game is so bad, it’ll be in the bargain bin in 60 days. Less, I’d venture. If you really want this game, just wait about 30 days and pick it up on the cheap. Even then, why waste your time with this dreadful game? Go pick up Skyrim or Fallout 3 or Portal or some other much better game than this and spend some time with a quality game. If you really love Resident Evil, pick up Resident Evil 4. It’s still far far outshines anything Capcom has ever done to date in this series. RE4 is, in fact, so far ahead of every other RE game that I can’t even fathom that Capcom had a hand in writing it. In fact, they probably didn’t.
It’s unfortunate that Capcom doesn’t quite get the gaming landscape today. Resident Evil 6 had so much it could have been and the developers just squandered away that opportunity. This is and will be the last Resident Evil game I buy from Capcom. No more throwing good money after bad. Capcom get with the program. As they say, once bitten, twice shy. No more Capcom titles in my house.
[UPDATE 2012-10-24: Thanks Riko]
Apparently you can pause the game, but only if you turn off multiplayer (?) features. Note, however, that I didn’t ‘turn on’ any multiplayer features when I played. I just played the game with however the campaign started. If that enables multiplayer features, I didn’t know it. Worse, I wasn’t playing multiplayer at all, however. I was playing the game in as though it were a single person campaign. That this game apparently turns on multiplayer features even though you are not using it (and worse, blocking the pause feature) is just stupid game design. I have to agree with Riko. This game is one big turd named starting with an s and ending with a t.
Stars: 1/2 out of 5 (Capcom gets the 1/2 star for effort).
Mass Effect 3: Stunning Graphics, Disappointing Story
I’ve played all three of the Mass Effect games from start to finish. I just finished Mass Effect 3 and I’d have to say I’m quite a bit disappointed by the conclusion of this trilogy. Note, spoilers ahead so stop reading now if you haven’t played this game yet.
Story Inconsistencies Abound
So, Shepard is off saving the Galaxy at the Citadel and about to pull the kill switch on the Crucible and where is the Normandy? Careening through Mass Effect hyperspace heading some place random. Ok, so this part makes no sense at all. Why would the Normandy be galavanting around the Galaxy at the most important time of all…. when the Crucible is being activated? It makes absolutely no sense. Not to mention, Shepard is the commander of that vessel. So, why would it be off running around on its own without Shepard, anyway? The Normandy should be right there front and center to see the fireworks display, not off running around in Mass Effect Hyperspace. I shake my head at whomever thought that story line up. Yes, I realize that Shepard’s team was overrun by a Reaper. But, Shepard has seen worse odds then that. Why would the Normandy suddenly decide to split? So now, Joker and Cortez exit the Normandy and the rest of the crew, who mysteriously do not exit the crashed Normandy, end up on some random planet stuck there without any way home.
Disappointing ending
There are two paths at the end for Shepard. Unfortunately, neither of them are particularly pleasant endings for him. However, once Shepard chooses one of two paths, the endings are pretty similar in his final outcome. Humanity, on the other hand, isn’t necessarily spared either way. The Reapers are gone for the moment, but they could still come back again based on the ‘entity’ who lives in the Citadel. But now, the Mass Effect relays are destroyed either way when the Crucible is activated. Without the Mass Effect relays, there is no way to fast travel anywhere in that universe.
Unfortunately, the two paths are way too convenient and similar in outcome. Why isn’t there a non-action path or other paths? Seriously, why does Shepard have to choose one of two paths? He could simply walk away and let the Reapers do their deeds or find another way. Clearly, he hadn’t gotten that far into it to just walk away, but why isn’t there more than two options? Further, why is it that Shepard has to die anyway? Although, we don’t know specifically that he’s dead, it strongly implies as much. Once the ending cinematic ceases, it cuts to every place other than the Citadel. So, we really don’t know what became of the Citadel.
Rescuing Shepard?
Getting back to the Normandy issue, this raises another concern. Shepard’s love interest that is fostered during the game, why doesn’t this person stay and try to rescue Shepard? In fact, why isn’t that person even there. Seriously, a love interest that just leaves and goes somewhere else? The Normandy and its rescue shuttles should have been there as soon as Shepard pulled the trigger and, at the last minute, fished him off of the Citadel platform. In fact, the shuttle itself could have triggered what was necessary (at least for one of the endings).
Plot holes abound here too. If Shepard is to be the ‘savior’ of the Galaxy, there would have been prophecies foretold in at least one alien culture. Specifically, I’d bet on the Asari. But, no prophecies existed. In fact, they should have. In fact, Shepard should have been roped into a meeting with a seer of some kind who would give him ‘bad news’ about his ending, but also given hope that he has a choice.
Elusive Man
Another issue that just pokes at me for inconsistency, the Elusive Man’s sudden appearance on the Citadel + Crucible when Shepard is trying to find the controls to open the Citadel for the Crucible. He has never appeared in person at any part of the game other than in his round control room. Granted, Shepard and enemies make short work of that room leaving it as a disaster. But, he should have other bases. Also, what’s with all the black all over the Elusive Man’s face? I get the distinct impression that the Elusive Man on the Citadel was not, in fact, the Elusive Man. I believe it was either a carefully crafted AI Robot or a remote controlled clone of the Elusive Man.
Game Play Changes
With this game, the game is about 50% gameplay and 50% cinematics. Bioware/EA has also opted to add a ‘cinematic’ play mode which, I personally believe, ruined the whole gaming experience in all modes. Worse, the whole army readiness thing is a severe joke. You spend a ton of time trying to find ‘war assets’ and at the end it doesn’t appear to make any difference. I was at least expecting some kind of tactics simulation like Dune or Halo Wars. So, you could pick troops and make them go after Reapers to see how effective they would be. Didn’t happen. In fact, that whole part of the game was, as far as I can tell, a total waste of time. This game leaned so much toward cinema, I’d barely call it a shooter and it’s definitely not an RPG. Yes, Bioware left the leveling up and powers in there, but there was so little to do with them.
The Crucible is the only way?
So this device, thing, gadget, just didn’t really work for me. I mean, there have to be other means at destroying the Reapers than the Crucible. Sure, the Crucible is definitely one option that Shepard (and troops) should consider, but there should have been at least two or three other options available like some other super weapons discovered in a remote planet. In fact, there should have been scientists out there devising a means to kill the Reapers through a virus, bad code or even the Geth. In fact, depending on which fleets you end up having as allies, the method of Reaper destruction should change based on those fleets. The tactics and methods of destruction should also be available. This is supposed to be an RPG, so let’s treat it as one. Alas, didn’t happen.
Best Part of this Game
Basically, you play it for the eye candy. The characters look amazing. The environments and lighting are perfect. The player movements from motion capture, outstanding. The voice acting, the backstory of the characters and the sheer character interaction is perfect. The music fits very well and works quite well in the game. When you do get gunfire gameplay, it’s trivially easy, but it is quite fun. However, there’s just simply not enough of it. The questing part of the game, of which there’s far too little if this is supposed to be an RPG, is also fun. Don’t go into this game expecting an outstanding storyline. That’s not where this game shines. This game shines in how the gameplay unfolds. Mostly, the interactions between the crew and Shepard is where this game shines and is the most satisfying parts of this game.
Ending
The ending of this game was a complete disappointment on so many levels. For me, the ending completely ruined the fun I was having with exploring the Milky Way, the Citadel and various other worlds. The impending threat is always there, but you can safely ignore it until you get to the end. Leave it to EA to mess this one up. The gameplay is, well, what game play? You’re sitting there watching a cinematic unfold at the end. That’s it. No bosses, no battles, nothing. Just watching a movie. I didn’t buy this game to watch a movie. I realize cinematics are a big part of games today, but that was just too much. On top of that, the story (based on the above) just makes little sense.
Shepard is either dead, consumed or heavily incapacitated. The Mass Effect Relays are completely destroyed throughout the galaxy (choosing either path) and the Normandy is inexplicably stranded on some random world somewhere remote. Worse, once the deed is done, all you see is some text that says ‘Shepard is now regarded as a hero’. Wait, what? Seriously? You can’t even show a celebration from the troops, a commendation animation, a memorial service, a world rebuilding animation or even a news clip from the news anchor who was on board the Normandy nearly all of the time? Clearly, the ending was rushed and the game’s story wasn’t that well thought out. There are way too many loose ends here to call this a satisfying conclusion to a trilogy. I hope they are planning for Mass Effect 4 because this ending leaves me saying, “huh?” and desiring a whole lot more fitting conclusion to Shepard’s life and celebration of his life.
Oh, and what’s with the severely bad voice acting of the father and son storytelling clip at the end? Is that supposed to suggest that the whole thing was made up by some guy just to amuse his son? Seriously?
Randosity Related Article: Analysis of Mass Effect 3’s Ending
3D TV: Flat cutouts no more!
So, I’ve recently gotten interested in 3D technology. Well, not recently exactly, 3D technologies have always fascinated me even back in the blue-red glasses days. However, since there are new technologies that better take advantage of 3D imagery, I’ve recently taken an interest again. My interest was additionally sparked by the purchase of a Nintendo 3DS. With the 3DS, you don’t need glasses as the technology uses small louvers to block out the image to each eye. This is similar to lenticular technologies, but it doesn’t use prisms for this. Instead, small louvers block light to each eye. Not to get into too many technical details, the technology works reasonably well, but requires viewing the screen at a very specific angle or the effect breaks down. For portable gaming, it works ok, but because of the very specific viewing angle, it breaks down further when the action in the game gets heated and you start moving the unit around. So, I find that I’m constantly shifting the unit to get it back into the proper position which is, of course, very distracting when you’re trying to concentrate on the game itself.
3D Gaming
On the other hand, I’ve found that with the Nintendo 3DS, the games appear truly 3D. That is, the objects in the 3D space appear geometrically correct. Boxes appear square. Spheres appear round. Characters appear to have the proper volumes and shapes and move around in the space properly (depth perception wise). All appears to work well with 3D games. In fact, the marriage of 3D technology works very well with 3D games. Although, because of the specific viewing angle, the jury is still out whether it actually enhances the game play enough to justify it. However, since you can turn it off or adjust 3D effect to be stronger or weaker, you can do some things to reduce the specific viewing angle problem.
3D Live Action and Films
On the other hand, I’ve tried viewing 3D shorts filmed with actual cameras. For whatever reason, the whole filmed 3D technology part doesn’t work at all. I’ve come to realize that while the 3D gaming calculates the vectors exactly in space, with a camera you’re capturing two 2D images only slightly apart. So, you’re not really sampling enough points in space, but just marrying two flat images taken a specified distance. As a result, this 3D doesn’t truly appear to be 3D. In fact, what I find is that this type of filmed 3D ends up looking like flat parallax planes moving in space. That is, people and objects end up looking like flat cardboard cutouts. These cutouts appear to be placed in space at a specified distance from the camera. It kind of reminds me of a moving shadowbox. I don’t know why this is, but it makes filmed 3D quite less than impressive and appears fake and unnatural.
At first, I thought this to be a problem with the size of the 3DS screen. In fact, I visited Best Buy and viewed a 3D film on both a large Samsung and Sony monitor. To my surprise, the filmed action still appeared as flat cutouts in space. I believe this is the reason why 3D film is failing (and will continue to fail) with the general public. Flat cutouts that move in parallax through perceived space just doesn’t cut it. We don’t perceive 3D in this way. We perceive 3D in full 3D, not as flat cutouts. For this reason, this triggers an Uncanny Valley response from many people. Basically, it appears just fake enough that we dismiss it as being slightly off and are, in many cases, repulsed or, in some cases, physically sickened (headaches, nausea, etc).
Filmed 3D translated to 3D vector
To resolve this flat cutout problem, film producers will need to add an extra step in their film process to make 3D films actually appear 3D when using 3D glasses. Instead of just filming two flat images and combining them, the entire filming and post processing step needs to be reworked. The 2D images will need to be mapped onto a 3D surface in a computer. Then, these 3D environments are then ‘re-filmed’ into left and right information from the computer’s vector information. Basically, the film will be turned into 3D models and filmed as a 3D animation within the computer. This will effectively turn the film into a 3D vector video game cinematic. Once mapped into a computer 3D space, this should immediately resolve the flat cutout problem as now the scene is described by points in space and can then be captured properly, much the way the video game works. So, the characters and objects now appear to have volume along with depth in space. There will need to be some care taken for the conversion from 2D to 3D as it could look bad if done wrong. But, done correctly, this will completely enhance the film’s 3D experience and reduce the Uncanny Valley problem. It might even resolve some of the issues causing people to get sick.
In fact, it might even be better to store the film into a format that can be replayed by the computer using live 3D vector information rather than baking the computer’s 3D information down to 2D flat frames to be reassembled later. Using film today is a bit obsolete anyway. Since we now have powerful computers, we can do much of this in real-time today. So, replaying 3D vector information overlaid with live motion filmed information should be possible. Again, it has the possibility of looking really bad if done incorrectly. So, care must be taken to do this properly.
Rethinking Film
Clearly, to create a 3D film properly, as a filmmaker you’ll need to film the entire scene with not just 2 cameras, but at least 6-8 either in a full 360 degree rotation or at least 180 degrees. You’ll need this much information to have the computer translate to a believable model on the computer. A model that can be rotated around using cameras placed in this 3D space so it can be ‘re-filmed’ properly. Once the original filmed information is placed onto the extruded 3D surface and the film is then animated onto these surfaces, the 3D will come alive and will really appear to occupy space. So, when translated to a 3D version of the film, it no longer appears like flat cutouts and now appears to have true 3D volumes.
In fact, it would be best to have a computer translate the scene you’re filming into 3D information as you are filming. This way, you have the vector information from the actual live scene rather than trying to extrapolate this 3D information from 6-8 cameras of information later. Extrapolation introduces errors that can be substantially reduced by getting the vector information from the scene directly.
Of course, this isn’t without cost because now you need more cameras and a filming computer to get the images to translate the filmed scene into a 3D scene in the computer. Additionally, this adds the processing work to convert the film into a 3D surface in the computer and then basically recreate the film a second time with the extruded 3D surfaces and cameras within the 3D environment. But, a properly created end result will speak for itself and end the flat cutout problem.
When thinking about 3D, we really must think truly in 3D, not just as flat images combined to create stereo. Clearly, the eyes aren’t tricked that easily and more information is necessary to avoid the flat cutout problem.
Video game designers stuck in a rut
Video game consoles, such as the PS3, Wii and Xbox 360 (and even PC’s) have gotten more complex and provide impressive 3D capabilities and 5.1 sound. Yet, video games have not. There was a time many years ago when video game designers would take chances and create unique and unusual titles. Games that challenge the mind and challenge the video gamer’s thought processes. Games used to be fun to play.
In recent years…
Today, most games fall into a very small subset of genres: First/Third Person Shooter, Fighting, RPG, Simulation, Sports or Music (with a few lesser genres appearing occasionally). While the innovation in the hardware continues to progress, the video game designers are not progressing. Sure, it takes time to get actors into a studio to record tracks. Sure, it takes time to build and rig up 3D models. Sure, it takes time to motion capture realistic action to plug into those 3D models. Yes, it takes time to program all of those complex algorithms to make it all work as a whole. I understand all of that. But that’s the process, not the innovation. These are the tools necessary to get the job done. They are a means to an end and not the end in itself.
Design considerations
For whatever reason, big video game executives have it in their heads that the tried-and-true model sells a video game. That may be true to some degree, but you can also wear-out-your-welcome with overused techniques. In other words, when a game title sucks, the word spreads FAST in the video game community. That can stop a video game’s sales dead.
When starting a new game project, the producer and creative staff need to decide whether or not they are planning on introducing something new and innovative. First and third person shooters (FPS/TPS) have already been done and done and done and done again ad nauseam. That’s not to say that yet another TPS or FPS can’t be successful. It can.. IF there’s something compelling to the game… and that’s a big IF.
Sure, there are video gamers who will play anything they can get their hands on (known as video game fanatics). But, as a game developer, you can’t rely on these gamers to carry your title to success. These gamers do not necessarily make up the majority of the game buying public. As far as myself, I am an much more discriminating buyer. I simply won’t buy every title that comes along. I pick and choose the titles based on the styles of games I know that I like to play. For example, I do not buy turn-based games of any sort. I don’t care if it’s based on dice rolls or card draws whether in a fighting, FPS or RPG game. I won’t buy them because turn-based games get in the way of actual playing. Turn-based games also tend to be antiquated. I understand where turn-based play came from (i.e., board games). But, it has no place in a 3D world based video game.
Again, choosing to add turn-based play into your game is your decision as a developer. But, by doing so, you automatically exclude gamers who won’t buy turn-based games, like myself. There are gamers who do enjoy turn-based games, but I don’t know of any gamers who won’t buy real-time play styles and buy only turn-based. So, you automatically limit those who purchase your game to those who buy turn based. But, by making your game real-time, you include a much bigger audience.
These are up-front design considerations that, as a developer and producer, you need to understand about gamer buying habits. These are decisions that can directly affect the success of your video game title.
Previous innovations
In the early days of 3D console games (mid-80s through mid-90s), game developers were willing to try new and unusual things. Of course, these were the days when 3D was limited to flat untextured surfaces. We’ve come a long way in the graphics arena. But, even as far as we’ve come in producing complex and unusual 3D worlds within the games, the play styles have become firmly stagnant. For example, most First/Third person shooters today rely on a very linear story to get from point A to point B. Driving the game along is an invisible path. So, while the complex 3D world is wonderfully constructed, the character can only see the world from a limited vantage point. The cameras are usually forced to be in one spot (near or behind the character). The character is forced to traverse the world through a specific path with invisible boundaries. So, exploration of the world is limited to what the game designer and story allow you to do.
This style of game is very confining. It forces the gamer to play the game on the programmer’s terms rather than on the gamer’s terms. Worse, when this play style is combined with checkpoint saves, health meters and other confining aspects, these games can easily become tedious and frustrating. So, what a game developer may consider to be ‘challenging’, in reality becomes frustration.
A shot of new innovation
The video game development world needs is to open is collective eyes. Don’t rely on the tried-and-true. Don’t relay on formulas. Don’t assume that because a previous game worked that your next game will also work. What works is what video gamers like. What doesn’t work is what video gamers don’t like. The video game community is very vocal, so listen to your audience and learn. Most of all, try new things… and by that I don’t mean tweaking an existing formula. I mean, take a risk. Try something new. Let gamers explore the world. Produce worlds that are open and complete. Let gamers build things. Let gamers take the game to whole new levels. Build in construction sets to allow gamers to create things you have never thought of. Build in ways to save the constructions to web sites and allow gamers to monetize the things they’ve built.
These are innovations that lead to progress. These are innovations that instill addictiveness into the game. These are innovations that keep your game alive for years to come. You only need to look at the popularity of Second Life, World of Warcraft and even the Elder Scrolls series to understand that an unlimited world with construction kits allow gamers to take the game into directions you’ve never even thought of.
Most games play through in only a few weeks (sometimes less than 1 week). The gamer buys it, plays it through and then trades it in never to touch it again. This is effectively a movie rental. So, once the gamers have had their fill, the game is effectively dead. This style of game does not provide your company with a continued stream of revenue from that title. Only titles that have open ends, that offer expansion packs, and that allow gamers to construct things on their own are the games that keep a title alive for years rather than a few weeks.
That may require a slightly bigger cash outlay in the beginning (to support a title that has a longer lifespan), but if done correctly, should also provide much more income for that game company. This is why titles like Fallout 3, Oblivion: Elder Scrolls IV and World of Warcraft are talked about months (and even years) after the game’s initial release. But, forgettable games like Fracture, Too Human or even Force Unleashed have no extra play value after the game ends.
Gaming elements incorrectly used
In too many game designs, programming elements are used incorrectly to ‘challenge’ the gamer. Game challenges should come in the form of story elements, puzzles, clues and riddles. Game challenge elements should not involve game saving, turn-based play, checkpoints, character deaths, camera movement, controller button sequences, or anything dealing with the real-world physicality of the gaming system. In other words, challenges should not be tied to something outside of the video game or outside of the story. So, as a designer.. you should always ask yourself: Does this challenge progress the game story forward? If the answer is no, the challenge is a failure. If yes, then the story becomes better by the challenge.
Button Sequences
For example, requiring the gamer to respond to a sequence of button presses in a very specific real-world time limit is not challenging. This is frustrating. This means the gamer needs to trial-and-error this section until they can make it through the timed sequence of buttons. This is a failed and incorrectly used ‘challenge’ event. This section does not challenge. Instead, this sequence requires the gamer to ‘get through’ that section. Note that ‘getting through’ is not a positive gaming aspect. Worse, if this game section comes in a FPS game, but only occasionally (only to fight a boss), this is also incorrectly used. If this play style is used regularly and consistently throughout the game, then the gamer knows that it’s coming. If it’s used only at certain undisclosed points rarely, then the gamer has to fumble to realize what’s going on when there is no warning.
Death Sequences
Another common, but also incorrectly used gaming element is the character death sequence. For some reason, recent games have promoted the use of character deaths as part of the challenge element. So, there are sections of some games where the designers specifically designed the level so the gamer has to ‘die’ his way through the level. These trial and error sequences, again, are incorrectly used and do not aid in moving the story or the game forward. These also tend to promote deaths as a way to solve problems. This is not appropriate.
Games should always promote the positive aspects of life and not promote death as a means to an end. Worse, games like Too Human take the death sequence to an extreme and make the gamer wait through an excruciatingly long cinematic each time the character dies. This, again, is an inappropriate use of a gaming element. The game should be designed for the GAMER and not for the game designer. Long death sequences such as what’s in Too Human overly emphasizes death. This is, again, not appropriate.
Health Meters
Health meters are another common gaming element that are incorrectly used, or lack thereof. Every game that allows the character to ‘die’ needs to have a visible health meter. Games that use the Unreal engine do not have this. Instead, when your character takes enough ‘damage’, the screen will become red with a halo. The problem with this system (and this is also why its incorrectly used) is that the gamer doesn’t know how far from ‘death’ the character is. This is not a challenge. This is annoying and frustrating. This leaves the gamer wondering just how much health they have.
Game Saves
Again, story elements move the game forward. Having the gamer stop and reload a game takes the gamer OUT of the game and forces them to restart from some arbitrary point. Checkpoint games are particularly bad about this. When checkpoints are the only way to save a game, this means the gamer must waste their real-world time through trial-and-error gaming. This means, the user must wait through character deaths and then the subsequent reload of the level to restart at the checkpoint. Again, this is not a challenge… it’s simply a waste of time. When levels are designed such that the gamer’s character will die at least once to get through the level, the level has failed. This forces a reload of a previous save. This element, again, is misued as a challenge element. Taking the gamer out of the game by forcing a reload ruins the game experience and disrupts the story you, as a developer, worked so hard to make cohesive.
Future of Gaming
Even as game developers are now stuck in the genre rut, they do have the power to break out of it. They do have the means to produce games with more compelling and addictive content. Instead of using old formulas that used to work, designers need to look for new ways to innovate, monetize and bring video gamers into their game worlds and keep them there. Games shouldn’t be viewed as a short term point A to B entity. Games need to move to open ended and free exploration worlds. Worlds that let the gamer play on the gamer’s terms. Sure, there can be story elements that tie the game together like Fallout 3 and Oblivion. In fact, I’d expect that. But, these game threads should start and end inside the game as quests. You can play them when you want to and you can leave them hanging if you don’t want to complete it.
Game elements like checkpoints, saves and button sequences need to be rethought. Some of these elements can be successfully used, like checkpoints if implemented thoughtfully. However, allowing the gamer to save anywhere lets the gamer save and start at their leisure. But, that manual save process leaves it up to the gamer to remember to save. For this reason, checkpoints when combined with save-anywhere is the best alternative when gaming. After all, the game was supposed to be produced for the gamer.
Designers, creators and developers need to challenge the notion of what is a video game. They need to use the 3D worlds in creative NEW ways. Let the users explore the worlds on their terms, not on some dictated path and story. Designers need to take a page from Bethesda’s book on free-roaming RPGs and expand on this. Closed ended, path based games have limited playability and definitely no replay value. Monetarily, developers need to understand that open ended construction based games let gamers take ownership of the game and make it their own. Closed, narrow pathed games do not.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
1 comment