gamedesign
Latest
WWDC Video: Unity 2.0 sneak peek
The gang from Over the Edge gave us a sneak peek of two new features in Unity 2.0: a cool terrain tool and real-time dynamic shadows. Check out the video, but also check out their page of all the other features coming soon to Unity.[Note: we'll have all these WWDC videos available for direct download soon!]
Wii Warm Up: More freeform game design
We enjoyed reading your ideas last time, so we thought we'd have another brainstorming session. Let's hear your pitches for possible Wii games. Get creative, and see if you can come up with something totally new! The only rule is that it has to be completely awesome, or not.
Video: Unity, the game dev tool for Macs
Click To Play We've covered Unity before, but video speaks louder than words, so we were happy to have a demo of some incredible features in the latest version. Unity is a game dev tool, only for Macintosh, that allows you to create Mac games, Dashboard widget games, PC games, web games embedded on a page and (eventually) Wii games. What's really impressive about Unity is the ease-of-use. The FPS you'll see in the video was created by a 15-year-old with no previous programming experience-- using an eMac. Also, be sure to stay tuned on Monday for another video with team Unity as they unveil some amazing new features.Again, here's the .mov version for everyone to enjoy in stutter-free format.
Cryptic G4 ads promote animated game design comedy
If you've been watching G4 lately (and if so, may we ask why?) you've probably seen a couple thousand 30-second spots promoting a mysterious, retro-stylized game company called GameAVision. The viral marketing got even weirder yesterday with an e-mailed press release that touts the two advertised games, Crosswalk and Bar Fight, as "featur[ing] movable character, sound, and several exciting colors." The ads and the release both direct players to the GameAVision web site, which includes some unplayable, Atari 2600-style Flash games and some amusing help wanted ads, among other things.What's going on here? Turns out the cryptic campaign is for an upcoming animated series that G4 commissioned last year. According to the October 2006 press release, the show will feature "Dave and Jerry, two video-game programmers whose lives are turned upside down when GameAVision, the freewheeling company at which they've spent their whole careers, is purchased by Bob Larrity, a crazed Texan businessman who knows nothing about video games except that they 'sell good.'"The premise actually sounds interesting, and the involvement of Minoriteam creator Adam de La Pena is encouraging. It's also nice to see G4 filling its schedule with some new, vaguely game-related programming instead of more reruns of Cops or something. Here's hoping the show lives up to its promise.
Ohio Game Jam asks: can you make a game in 24 hours?
Ohio University's Post Online brings us a story on the Ohio Game Jam, a competition among amateur designers who try to create the best game possible in only 24 hours. The winning title was developed in only two hours, which is still a longer development cycle than some commercial products seem to have.Says "Event Overlord" Ian Schreiber: "You don't end up with Shakespeare, but you have some high levels of creativity because of the time constraints." By most accounts, you don't end up with Shakespeare even if you spend years on a game, so that's okay. And a quick-and-dirty contest like this is bound to result in ideas you'd never see in a game developed over three years by a committee. For instance, one of the Jam games used Chuck Norris's head as a projectile. We'd love to play that. But then, we'd also love to be called "Event Overlord."
A numerical history, and future, of flOw dev That Game Company
On the first floor of Moscone's North hall last Friday, flOw developer That Game Company presented their storied origins. Co-founders Jenova Chen, who took a brief recess from the company to help on the DS version of Will Wright's Spore, and Kellee Santiago, met at the University of Southern California. "I don't see [video games] as being any different [than other interactive media], it's all story telling," Santiago said. Chen, who affirms that his proudest work is flOw and Cloud, explained their place in gaming with an ever-popular culinary allegory. Think of Gears of War as steak and World of Warcraft as chicken. Let's give lettuce a relation to Nintendogs and fish can be Brain Age. "Let's say you focus on chicken, but somehow you find a way to make it accessible and customizable," said Chen. The according Power Point slide shows the chicken transition into a bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. "That also expands the audience or customers. How can you make existing games more accessible to wider audiences?" Does that mean flOw is a bowl of cereal? All we know now is that we're quite famished.
Patrick Curry completes his 52 game ideas
With all the New Year's celebration we forgot to check in on Patrick Curry (Stubbs the Zombie, John Woo's Stranglehold), who set out to make 52 new game ideas, one per week, for the entirety of 2006. On January 1, Curry finished his project with Swordplay, a fighting card game.The last time we checked in on him, we selected our top picks of the initial 24, but this time we can't narrow down our favorite game ideas. Go peruse his proposals and let us know your favorite ideas.[Thanks, tony]
Microsoft releases XNA Game Studio Express
Microsoft's been talking this one up for some time now, but XNA Game Studio Express, the so-called "YouTube for games," has finally hit the big 1.0 and is now available for would-be game designers everywhere to get their hands dirty with. The software is a trimmed down version of the company's full-fledged XNA game devleopment platform, based on Visual C# Express and able to run on a standard Windows PC (XP for now, Vista later). The YouTube analogy is, of course, a bit of an overstatement as you'll need some honest-to-goodness programming skills to actually create something resembling a game. While the core software is available as a free download, to get the most out of it you'll have to sign up for the XNA Creators Club, which will run you $49 for a four month subscription or $99 for an annual sub through Xbox Live Marketplace. In addition to letting you play user-created games on an Xbox 360, it'll also give you access to a library of game assests, as well as sample products, white papers, and technical support. If you need an added incentive, Microsoft's also announced the "Dream-Build-Play" game design competition, though the only details they're providing at the moment are that you can win "fantastic prizes" and "global envy." Funny, we thought you needed a PS3 for that.
Why aren't simulation games simulating fun?
Greg Costikyan gave PlayFirst's Cinema Tycoon a go and found it lacking. Sure, the game's got everything that fans of the "tycoon" genre have come to expect (maximize your profits in industry X while micro-managing staff, product and investments), but Costikyan wonders if maybe the game misses an opportunity to convey what he imagines to be the real fun of owning a cinema. He writes: "Man, this so does not play into my fantasies about what it would be like to run a multiplex. Maximizing profit? Probably the owner cares about that, but.... What I'd really like to be doing is boffing the chickie in the ticket office, and sneaking out back for a joint with the projectionist between reel changes." It's time for a new type of simulation game -- one that doesn't assume profit is the only motive driving its lifeless, robotic protagonists. Sam Malone didn't own Cheers because he was a profit-maximizing automaton, Noah didn't stuff the Arc with two of everything because he envisioned running the world's most profitable zoo, and Willy Wonka was fascinating precisely because he eschewed profits in favor of making the best damned candybars on earth. [Photo of stereotypically high-temperature box office girl courtesy of Bluecube.]
Game designers stuck being "Romantic"
Our readers amaze us. In responding to our post about the "perfect" game enemy, reader Brad Lee diagnosed the ailment that afflicts game designers who insist on using the same old slobbering, ugly Zombie-Alien-Nazi enemies. Here's Brad's post, edited for brevity: The problem is that games are still stuck in the 'Romantic' era. Too many video game developers look to romanticism for inspiration. (Romanticism was an artistic movement that emphasized exaggeration, emotion, nature, tradition, etc.) In Romanticism, an artist who wants to convey an emotion such as sadness uses dark colors. If he wants to convey evil, he makes the subject ugly. And so on.Games use this art style simply because it's easier. There are a lot of costs to produce a video game -- graphics and game engine being the most expensive -- and I'm sure story and characters are probably a lower priority than other aspects of video games. Keep in mind that most games' stories are not produced by professional writers (or good writers anyway), so it is simply easier to use romanticism than try and craft a realistic story with [realistic] characters.It is much easier to make a story about demons rampaging through the world (and only one guy -- you! -- can stop them) than to create a story about real people just struggling to do the right thing. Many game developers just don't know any better because they don't bother to take creative writing classes or to learn how to craft a good story. Many think they shouldn't have to [learn these things] simply because they are focused on the game and not the story or the characters.Game developers are likely game developers because they love games, not because they love great stories. When those developers aren't working they are likely spending their time playing other games. If developers took some time to read [and analyze] good literature and watch classic movies we would probably have better stories and characters in our games. Until that happens, I'll be expecting to slaughter many more hordes of zombies, nazis, demons, and aliens in the years to come. Any game designers out there care to post a rebuttal or confirmation? Are Brad's charges accurate? From where we sit, it seems he's nailed it.
Gamer's Room 101: the argument FOR balance
The concept: During the 'Game Design Room 101' session at Develop, several developers brought out props to represent their pet peeves from games. If you've read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you'll know where the concept comes from. In the UK, Room 101 is a weekly game/talk show presented by Paul Merton, who invites a guest to come on the show who then attempt to convince him that a certain annoyance in their lives should go in the bin, and never be seen again. This seminar (and series of posts) takes a look at certain elements of games that were nominated by the panel to go in the games designer's bin. Jen and I are going to take opposite positions in the debate. The point: Jonathan Smith of TT Games brought out a pair of scales to represent his nomination -- balance. Balance, according to Smith, is where a developer expressly sets out to tell the player "you can have this much fun", rationing the pleasure out piece by piece. My stance: Balance should stay. Jen's stance: Balance should go. You decide.
Gamer's Room 101: the argument AGAINST balance
The concept: During the 'Game Design Room 101' session at Develop, several developers brought out props to represent their pet peeves from games. If you've read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you'll know where the concept comes from. In the UK, Room 101 is a weekly game/talk show presented by Paul Merton, who invites a guest to come on the show who then attempt to convince him that a certain annoyance in their lives should go in the bin, and never be seen again. This seminar (and series of posts) takes a look at certain elements of games that were nominated by the panel to go in the games designer's bin. Conrad and I are going to take opposite positions in the debate.The point: Jonathan Smith of TT Games brought out a pair of scales to represent his nomination -- balance. Balance, according to Smith, is where a developer expressly sets out to tell the player "you can have this much fun", rationing the pleasure out piece by piece.My stance: Balance should go.Conrad's stance: Balance should stay.You decide.
Develop: Game design ideas worth stealing
Game development gets accused of stagnation on a near-daily basis, and yet recent games have all featured innovative steps that can appeal to a variety of players. From minor design choices which somehow redeemed a title, to major decisions shaping the entire nature of a game, it's easier than you might think to make a difference. Margaret Robertson of EDGE gave her top picks from the last year or so's crop of games at the Develop Conference; read on for the lowdown.
Game designer Chris Crawford gets his grump on
Veteran game-designer (though he hasn't released a game since 1991) gets his grump on in this interview with Gamasutra. They begin by asking about his recent statement at the Game Developer's Conference that video games were "dead," in which he elocuted, "We put food in, shit comes out." Indeed. So with the industry already dead -- or, as he equivocates, just braindead -- how do we resuscitate its limp and fallow body? According to Crawford, it's as simple as this: interactive storytelling, a fourteen year project of his. Like he did at GDC, Crawford swings the ideal of "innovation" around like a blunt instrument; a straw-man argument wherein games are (brain)dead since every single one doesn't expand the medium. By his metric, both cinema and literature have been braindead for years although, somehow, he manages to excuse them using a slightly different metric. Really, the more I read and hear his arguments, the more confused and confusing they become. Crawford sounds like someone who's been left behind by the rapidly evolving games industry, frustrated by his marginal role and lack of influence. For anyone who heard the volley of questions leveled at Crawford following his GDC rant, it's clear many people in the industry -- while often frustrated -- don't share his doom and gloom prognosis. For a companion rant, check out Gamerjunk's blow-by-blow rebuttal.
Why games suck
When games suck, we tend to blame the developer. This piece by David A. Rodriguez over at Buzzscope tries to shed some light on the development process behind bad games -- helping us figure out why they suck.As with many things in life, it's all about the money -- those who wield it have ultimate control, regardless of how unreasonable or impractical their desires. Rodriguez has a neat explanation: developers aren't artists, but they're in customer service. Whatever the customer wants, the customer gets. In this case, the customer is often the publisher, who wants to make more money by releasing a game that will sell. So, next time you think about picking up that copy of Crazy Frog Racer, remember this article -- and don't.[Via Eurogamer]
Girl gamers applaud choice
One of the features in the upcoming Mass Effect is the ability to choose your gender. For a game which revolves around one central character (Commander Shepard) and the related storyline, it's an interesting addition, though not entirely novel.However, it may have more appeal than a first glance would imply. We spoke to several female gamers at E3 who insisted that being able to play a female character is a crucial differentiator between games they like and games they love. It doesn't strike a game from the favourites list -- many of these women loved Halo 2 -- but it's a selling point that turns out to be surprisingly important to the female audience.
Rather than Man the Hunter... Giant Hyena Chow, or Protein on the Go.
We're goin to appeal to your patience and mental flexibility, again, reader, as we point you to this fantastic article that develops an alternate theory on the origins of man and busts the myth that we've been almighty hunters for a very long time. First, read the article. Even if you don't see an immediate connection to gaming, there's plenty to like, what with images of giant pre-historic cousins of cats, dogs and eagles sinking their fangs, claws and talons into human skulls. Next, think about what this means for games. Though games are cultural artifacts and therefore don't question cultural norms and standards, many successful games do manage to violently yank us back to a time when we were mere prey being hunted for someone else's dinner. Think about those jump-out-of-your-skin moments from Half-Life: such game moments play on fear that comes from hundreds of thousands of years spent fleeing from jaws of death. The second critical thought in the article is that cooperation with fellow humans is what lead us to build technologies that protected us from predatory animals, and this urge too is echoed in games through coop modes that drive home the idea that we're stronger together than we are apart. And so we come to a view of games in which all game designers simulate just a few archetypal situations (flight, fight or cooperate) not because they lack creativity, but because we're still rather close to an age when mortal conflict dominated every waking moment.
Warren Spector: Will the real future please stand up?
Back in November, Warren Spector caused something of a stir with his comments about the state of the games industry, including an aside slamming Grand Theft Auto. What Spector was really on about was the use of clichéd violence in mainstream gaming, and The Escapist has given him a soapbox to follow up on his speech from last year and elaborate.He asks an important question: what's in store for the future of gaming? "Depending on how you look at things, you can paint a picture of gaming's bright future of growing profits and importance, or one of doom and gloom - of irrelevance and stagnation. Either could be true. Which future is our real future? Will we go mainstream or marginal?"Gaming seems bound for the mainstream one way or another, but Spector addresses an overlooked possibility--that it will lose its mainstream appeal, and go back to the sidelines like so many media fads of the past have done. He outlines that gaming is at a crossroads at the moment, and the demands of a mainstream audience will cause game developers (and the industry as a whole) to make a series of crucial decisions in years to come. Gaming won't die, but it's easy to agree with this point: It's just that it's relatively easy for me to imagine scenarios where mainstream audiences get sick of us, sick of the product we offer them, sick of repetitive, seemingly-but-not-really interactive, emotion-free, slam-bang, U.S.-centric, urban, hip hop action games and alien invasion scenarios.Cliché-slamming and thought-provoking--it'll be interesting to see Spector's followup articles in future Escapist issues.
Carnival of Gamers rolls on to Virgin Worlds
Following on from last month's stop at Slashdot, March's Carnival of Gamers brings you a selection of interesting points of view from game bloggers around the Web. From gold farming to EVE Online, with a dash of common sense and fun to go, the Carnival's cross-section of culture never fails to amaze. Bookmark 'em, print 'em out, just make sure they end up on your reading list somewhere.
Are we learning the wrong lessons from WoW?
Gamasutra has published a soapbox piece examining what WoW is teaching us about gameplay, and asking whether it's teaching us the right things.The main points include the much debated "Time over Skill" mindset imbued in the endgame, the push away from self-reliance to group play, and the "You're either with us or against us" guild mentality. Finally, the extensive Terms of Use Agreement and its use in disciplining players is also brought up.Not all of the lessons learned here are bad--there are real-life echoes of all of these points, and learning to invest substantial amounts of time in a task as well as how to effectively work in a group could be considered positive aspects of WoW. However, these four points are all fairly offputting to casual players, especially when those casual players reach the endgame.Having played solo for most of 60 levels, suddenly a player learns that they're not going to be able to take part in much of the remaining content without a guild or group. They're competing for places in guilds or raids with those who have invested much more time, and thus have better gear. Bored, they turn to exploring the game world, and suddenly get banned for being in a place they shouldn't have found. Harsh lessons indeed.Obviously, the "hardcore vs casual" debate has more to it than this; but in terms of the lessons taught by WoW, it seems there are two sides--one for those with lots of time and a popular guild, another for everyone else.
