game-design
Latest
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.
Multi-level gameplay
Gamasutra has a Designer's Notebook piece by Ernest Adams centring around the concept of 'multi-level gameplay' -- that is, games with multiple 'levels' of interaction, or different modes of play. An example is the interrelated tactical and strategy modes found in war-games: you can make decisions that affect the entire world, but also fight individual battles on the ground.Multi-level games are more complex, but allow you to enjoy different aspects of the game -- knowing that you'll have to fight personally if you move an army to a particular spot makes you feel more involved than if the computer simulates a battle. They are hard to design, however, and balance between the different game modes is key.
