What ways can game systems encourage or create gaming communities?

Recently at work, there’s been a big debate/discussion regarding the most recent InfinityWard’s announcement of the lack dedicated server functionality within the pc version of“Modern Warfare 2”. Here’s a link of the news filled with hated ridden commentshttp://www.vg247.com/2009/10/20/bowling-seeks-to-ease-mw2-pc-tension-with-iwnet-explanation/

I can certainly understand the cause of concern for the lack of dedicated servers being the main foundation what creates online pc gaming communities in the first place but it got me thinking further, thinking and questioning about forms of gaming communities in games today. What alternative forms are there? How are they created? What game systems are in place to create or encourage gaming communities and to allow easy accessibility to interaction with other players feeling like you apart of something? Looking and exploring this topic further you may start think that maybe the lack dedicated servers isn’t such a big deal for the COD experience after all.

With me being a console gamer, (primarily – as I like pc gaming too) “Xbox live” is the ideal service for me personal as it brings every gamer I know under one umbrella and in a way it’s a service who gives gamers a sense of community who don’t necessarily want to apart of typical gaming community having to dedicate too much effect or time to feel like they are apart of something. One of most appealing features of Xbox live is the achievement system which has created the current design ethos within contemporary games of instant gratification which cleverly hides the competitive nature of completion via encouraging silly bragging rights with your friends and indiscreetly gives gamers an incentive to connect with other players comparing achievements and sharing a interest in the same games. You could argue that this is a superficial approach for creating sense of community (like a vain fashion show with women end up fighting or chatting away cause they wearing the same shoes) compared to pc communities as they created within for the love and passion of a chosen played game, but then yet Xbox live’s focus is far more ambiguous appealing broader spectrum of audiences from casual gamers to hardcore, etc. That’s what I found interesting about Xbox live is its form and purpose as a service and its functions creating that service as a service is strong as functions and tools, right? I don’t think Xbox Live service directly creates gaming communities within itself but certainly provides functions and tools as service for game devs to create gaming communities or sense of completion and reward for players in many imaginative ways.

These days retroperspective games are really popular and they have certainly have re-built a place within modern gaming within the few past years with digital distribution becoming more accepted and of course their evolutional push towards design of conventional game mechanics and patterns from their skilled developers but there’s one simple element/feature which I think make these games as vital and liberating as they were back in the day. In fact so important it could make or break a game for the lack of… Here I announce it the “online scoreboard” yes I give you a few moments to take that in, yes an online scoreboard.I remember how back in the day, the scoreboard was the secondary feature just left in from being lazy port of the arcade version and these days, it’s the main hook for the overall playability wasting hours trying to beat my friends scores on titles like “Trails HD” and “Geometry Wars 2”. I find it amazing how such a small simple bit of functionality can create such intense completion and desire to learn the mechanics coming up with new ways to gain more points. Lately I’ve been playing “Trails HD” and it has this level editor feature which can be only shared among your friends list (no way to officially publish your levels publicly, not sure why they didn’t such functionality) and recently I saw this video made by the dev team “Red Lynx” showing their favourite made levels from users, have a watch: http://www.eurogamer.net/videos/exclusive-trials-hd-user-made-levels

It’s quite cool to see “Red Lynx” are acknowledging the hard work that users have put into building some great tracks and coming up with alternative solutions for sharing content developing a small community and there are lots of videos on youtube with many users trying express and share their work. You could say that isn’t a gaming community as “Red Lynx” isn’t supporting it with forums and modding tools, etc and obviously it’s isn’t a type of game which you would associate with gaming communities as it’s no World of Warcraft but then again it’s a game for very different type of player wanting a different type of experience therefore it’s has to be different community to reflect that. Trails HD seems to have very insular but keen community although it isn’t very self-contained or organised but certainly reflects their indie roots as developers and of course the subject matter of the game being about extreme stunts and rock ‘n’ roll. It gives the game unique vibe or sense of character which makes it seem quite cute and friendly.

What I’m ultimately trying to say is that I believe that it’s down to developer’s creativity to use the tools at hand to create experience and form of community which correlates with that core experience as sense of community is a great gaming intervention as no one wants feel alone. I certainly would like to look further into gaming communities and their form as an industry we need to invent new type and styles of communities.

Jonesy

Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 2

Going back to my experience with “PixelJunk Monsters”, I’ve never previously played a tower defence game before but yet I learned the core mechanics and understood the goal of the game (rules) pretty quickly of building towers (turrets) with strategic placement to protect the village from wave after wave of enemies with own attack patterns. Although the game’s purpose/focus is simple in nature but progressively becomes quite deep and involving (in the hidden behind the curtains type of way) as you learn more about the specific turrets pros and cons against certain enemy types, the currency (money) to either use for upgrading current placed turrets or buy completely new turrets altogether and so forth. What I find interesting about this game is the way these rules are very obviously communicated to you as a player via interacting and engaging with enemy waves/patterns and there’s no misconception of what you have to do to overcome/defeat these enemies with their paper/scissors/stone damage aspect but that’s where the fun lies is preparing for these enemy waves trying to master and predict the pattern of the level.

I find this game to be very addictive and engrossing as the game has clear defined rules making the experience feel very coherent and you feel never cheated by the game system itself, when you fail its always your own fault and you can clearly see where you went wrong, learning from it making you willing to try again with a fresh different approach. The game is actually pretty difficult but when you successful complete a level, it feels rewarding mastering and forecasting the enemy patterns which continuously force you adapt to new situations coming up with new tactics/approaches to counteract these enemy waves, you feel pretty smart and good for it. The game also feels rewarding for its sense of rhythm and flow as you progress through the game you can start seeing a pattern in the enemy waves like the 1st wave of enemies are usually “pines” who are easily counteracted with cannon turrets then 2nd wave are usually “spiders” who are counteracted with cannons and arrows turrets and so forth but over wave 3, the enemy types/attack pattern become far less predictable becoming a game about unpredictability within a predictable box. Due to this you feel yourself growing as a player of the game being “in the zone” with carefully constructed enemy patterns which never betrays the flow and rules and logic of the game system and world itself. In other words, each level feels familiar but yet different which never alienates you but always feels fresh and challenging. For an example, here’s a song from one of favourite bands at the moment that has unique sound but yet very familiar song structure and rhythm (I realise that this type/style of music isn’t everyone’s cup of tea but please have a listen anyway to see what I mean):



What makes me wonder about a song like this, does the artist write the rhythm and beat first or do they write the lyrics first (context) and base the rhythm/sound around that? It doesn’t matter either way, but what I find interesting is how these two aspects fit together so seamlessly and looking at pixeljunk monsters, it’s done the same thing with it’s combined aspects of its game play of tower defence and the structure and flow of enemy waves introducing the player to a rhythm of patterns.

Its one of the few games which I play to directly engage with patterns for the achievement of mastering them like a shoot em’up I guess. As an industry I believe we are too hooked up on the contexts and themes which are our games explore rather exploring what patterns/lessons we can teach through our games. Sure the context/theme is what makes games initially appealing for audiences as we all judge things at first glance although we all know that we shouldn’t but we do. With the underlying design towards the flow of patterns, games can be enjoyed despite the context by broader audiences, for an example with old retro games like “Pacman” or “Tetris”; does anyone question where the blocks come from? Or feel alienated by it’s concept? Did people have to have prior gaming knowledge to enjoy these games? People would argue that I have a groundless argument due to the fact that we are in a different era of gaming which has never been so successful with mainstream before but I think that these principles are as important as today as back in the day as I firmly believe games can be used to teach us as well as entertain us.

Playing a game which puts me in the zone, feeling the flow and learning more and more as you keep exploring and experiencing the game is a wonderful feeling which in my eyes makes a rather beautiful game. Answering my question from previously what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game? A game which I can connect to that truly challenges and engages me for mastering and learning something, isn’t that what everyone wants from video games?

Jonesy

Gaming Patterns – the price of entrance to enjoy a game? - Part 1

I’m been playing a Tower defence game recently called “PixelJunk Monsters” (yeah I know its old news for you Playstation owners out there but it’s just too good). What I really enjoy about this game flow/structure with enemy patterns that continuously engage you placing me “in the zone” (or what I prefer to say is, plugged in) and that’s a rare experience for me these days.

Why is that? Am I getting old? Played too many games and I can see through the patterns presented to me making the experience unchallenging and boring? Well I certainly experienced this with certain titles I’ve played recently like “Resident Evil 5” which I thought was stuffed with predictable enemy patterns embracing typical counter tactics for your survival. You could argue that this game isn’t flawed in this area but just the simple fact that my knowledge/ pattern recognition for shooters is more developed than the game is actually designed for (casual gamers) and I require more advanced mechanics/patterns, etc to fulfil my needs as a gamer. Thinking about this got me thinking about the “price of entrance” for games. Is my knowledge/skills of gaming too high to enjoy “Wii Sports” (linear patterns and information) or too low to enjoy “Total War” on pc (complex patterns) due to my lack of experience playing historical Strategy games. As a gamer/observer I find myself within an odd position where I’m questioning myself what is my “price of entrance” to enjoy a game?

With modern games design approaches, there is a very obvious transparent line between Casual and Hardcore games where developers either add further complexity to established core mechanics towards genres like MMO’s or FPS’s appealing to the core fanbase/elite or developing relatable non-offensive subject matters with simple functionality emulating real like actions. I personally don’t think players should have to have previous knowledge or the desire to enjoy a game for its purpose and end goal result, (getting fit, learning French, building army whatever the subject matter/context is) I feel that a game should provide the knowledge and inspire the desire or an interest within the subject matter/themes that the game explores. The obvious target of such an example would be non-gamer/casual games market which (although debatable) do intend to undermine the primary purpose of why video games co-exist in the first place; to simply challenge and provide our brains with new info and patterns despite the fiction (theme/presentation). It’s easy to forget that us gamers have had years of training (playing games) to see through the fiction to master underlying mathematical patterns and objectives of the game system itself, It’s easy for us to criticize such an change of primary purpose for these games but then obviously the target demographic hasn’t had the gaming education/knowledge/background that we have obtained over the years.

Looking into this perspective further; games are effectively teaching tools although I wonder how much prior knowledge would be required to fully interact/learn and master a game or more specifically mastering the game’s patterns, rewarding the player’s effect? For an example, if I asked you to do me a painting, this may be too demanding for you but if I ask you to draw me a stickman, what would you possibly learn and experience from that or isn’t that sort of boring? This could be one of the simple reasons why typically non-gamers feel that video games are time wasters compared to other alternative mediums such as TV/film which passively informs, engage and possibly challenging them on broad levels.

Jonesy

(P.S read part two as well - I have a lot more to say!)

More about Horror! I love my horror!

Before I begin my next topic, I would like to say thanks for people for their comments on my previous post, made some good points and to carry on further extension of my previous topic/discussion I would to show you a quote which I always to use in my blog regarding our modern fears reflected within horror films such as “Saw” “Hostel” “The Hill have eyes 2”, etc. The quote is from: “Jennifer Ashlock”, a professor of sociology at the College of Notre Dame, here’s the link if you want to have a read: http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/804/804194p1.html

"You have a potential to make more money with torture (horror films) now because that's what actually scares a mainstream audience today," she says. "I don't think that they were very popular before because it just seemed so far off base. Like, 'That could never happen,' and it seemed very fringe back in the '70s and '80s. Not that you didn't have gore back then, but now that is something that we know is going on in the world. We know about certain atrocities in Guantanamo, for example. Even in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein supposedly, and even in our own American prison system, we know that torture goes on. Because of the Internet and the global media, we know that torture is a way of life really. That information is just more accessible to us. I also think it's more fundamentally frightening to us, because it's sort of a given now that torture is happening around the world."

I thought the quote has an interesting insight because I’ve never thought about how this current fear of “torture” has originated from being expressed within pop culture as I thought it’s something that we are all afraid of despite our current social awareness from the media. These films are produced very well as you can tell they really think about how they can subconsciously place the theme/fear of “torture” within an context/cover. The producers and writers of these films must have huge crazy brain storming sessions especially when they may be planning to release up Saw VIII (8). What’s the most creative and smart element of these films is that they are never directly about “torture” as a theme but as anticipation/fear mechanic but creators have thought up world/characters/set pieces for such things to happen in entertaining and coherence way.

I think perhaps game developers should have this same approach and think about as this is area where games as medium excels at exploring themes without player’s awareness, making players learn/train things about such themes. I think this is one way where developers can examine our fears without it being a direct part of gameplay as such thing as “torture” as I think would be perhaps too much as interactive part of gameplay. This is one area where horror games could excel at, what you people think?

Jonesy

Alan wake – The future of horror games?

E3 2009 is over, I hope you enjoyed it? I thought it was certainly the best E3 in a long time, they got their action together. What did you think of E3 this year? The other big surprise from watching the Microsoft conference (other than “Splinter Cell: Conviction” which I spoke about in my last post) was “Alan Wake” which I thought was going to end up being another “Duke Nukem Forever” with it either being cancelled or finally released with out of date ideas and mechanics. If you haven’t seen any gameplay footage of “Alan Wake” check it out below, I have to say its looks great and the timing for its revelation or release date for Spring 2010 couldn’t be better with the recently disappointing yet promising horror game “Resident Evil 5” and the lack of horror games in development these days.



“Horror Survival” is one of my favourite sub genres within video games, being quite fond of the genre since the PlayStation days of the original “Resident Evil” and “Silent Hill” which were based around unforgiving and unique mechanics and design approaches. The whole item management element for an example, where you had to plan out what items you think you would need for journey to the next location trying to predict what enemies/scenarios you would encounter. This was interesting element/mechanic which allows the designers to control the player’s psychology to embrace a sense of uncertainly and fear making the player feel weak and vulnerable.

Most of the horror games these days lack this sense of horror or suspense with titles like “Dead Space” or “Resident Evil 5” focused towards more visceral approach towards gameplay and expressing of “horror” via gory shock value and panic whereas old horror games were far more psychological experiences. I don’t find these recent horror games that frightening, (more unnerving perhaps?) but why is that? I think it’s not just the obvious game direction of “never outgunned, but always outnumbered” but for the player’s purpose/reward for interacting with such experience is empowerment and that’s one of the issues with the approaches towards horror within video games medium is that horror isn’t meant to make you feel good. It’s meant to make you feel bleak, desperate, weak, etc for your character and hopefully at the end, the character survives the incident and you are relieved for this result but I wouldn’t say this is empowerment. This is debatable; I would like to know what you guys think of this? Is this still empowerment if the player goes through emotional hell for just the character’s safety/ survival?

Lately, I’ve been playing a PlayStation 3 game called “Siren: Blood Curse”, not sure if you have hear of it? If you like horror games, I recommend it, it’s very unique and most frightening and intense game I’ve played in a long time. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/siren-blood-curse-review .It’s another great PlayStation 3 exclusive that Sony fails to market which is great shame as it deserves more credit. Anyway “Siren” takes place on remote Japanese cursed island where you play as 8 different character's perspectives over the course of the story, cutting back and forth on the timeline and revealing alternatives viewpoints and plot twists, basically imagine “Lost” meets “Ring” or “The grudge” (any J-horror movie). What I find interesting and smart is how the creators play about with the player’s feelings/motives via playing with different characters as every character has own set of ablitlies/actions within the context of their situation and characteristics. For an example, you play as “Bella Monroe” who is a young girl stuck inside of hospital who is too young to defend herself from the shibito (which is what the enemies are called in this game which are basically zombies) so she can’t pick objects to use as weapons but she is small giving her a great ablility to hide in many places forcing the player to sneak past the shibito making the player feel weak, small and tense . You also play as her father “Sam Monroe” who is grouped with another character equiped with weapons found within the mines, shooting any shibito encountered which makes you so grateful and powerful for such simple primary function in most games which makes this very empowering. The game explores a diverse array of moods/situations which solves the issue with horror I spoke about earlier and also pacing of player emotion. If look at “Resident Evil 4” (I think RE4 is best 3rd person shooter ever) I thought forwards the end of the game, it wasn’t frightening as I was too empowered, I felt like god and I could take out Godzilla with a knife whereas “Silent hill 2” was too tense for me and wasn’t empowering enough to carry on playing.

This is where I wonder what path is “Alan Wake” is going to take; more psychological or more action style of gameplay with such personal characteristic narrative as being “Alan Wake”? Will the game be embracing empowerment as “Alan Wake” like “Resident Evil 4” batting the horror incident becoming more powerful as the game progresses or will be more personal journey of surviving such incident? One of my concerns for this game that it may end up being an action game with horror elements like “Dead Space”, I guess its too early to tell but I think this would be obvious option for “Remedy Entertainment” as empowerment is easier to place within action games rather horror games. I hope they have the ambition to try otherwise, like with “Siren: Blood Curse”, balance player empowerment with emotions of fear and suspense, maybe even empathy.

Jonesy

Things I didn’t like about Splinter Cell series and how they address them in the new one: “Conviction” biggest surprise of E3 09.

Hello people, sorry it’s been a while since my last post. I promise I won’t let it happen again, you know how it is within games industry when you go through crunch time. But at last, I’ve had some holiday, time to reflect on things and lately I’ve spend my time watching lots of E3 stuff which I’m sure lot of you reading this have too. I think best surprise game of the show so far for me has to be “Splinter Cell: Conviction”, (a video below if you haven’t seen the gameplay demo, check it out) for being so confident towards a new creative direction improving and addressing criticisms that this established franchise has had previously with one being most obviously: narrative and story.

For me, personally I always found “Sam Fisher” to be very boring one dimensional character compaired to most main characters from action games, with the most obvious comparion, “Solid Snake” from the “Metal Gear” games. What I thought lacked with “Sam Fisher” wasn’t character personality as such (Sam Fisher is voiced by “Michael Ironside”, a great actor and has some decent character dialogue to boot) but it’s just the fact there isn’t never any game context/scenarios for you as the player to relate with him or learn more about him as an character.

You could argue that such elements wouldn’t translate well within the realistic cold espionage theme of the game, and player emotional involvement and character development would push away from such theme/feel. Although if compared with the yet again obvious comparion of “Metal Gear” being so over the top and melodramatic making character development and motives easier to express with the setting of such great contrasts of good vs evil. Where “Splinter cell” lacks in meaning and narrative it gains in gameplay and player functionality and interactivity with “Sam Fisher” being able to so many actions making the levels/environments multilayered and multi dimensional (game and level design is excellent in Splinter Cell games). This new “Splinter Cell” is like their “Resident Evil 4” for the series reinventing what it is but also remains to stay true to the core of what “Splinter Cell” is which is a rare compromise among games.

Another common criticism I agree with, is that Splinter Cell’s gameplay seems to rely on motion of trial and error due to the multilayered level design and the player’s access to so many game interactions/game paths (linear level progression point A to point B but non-linear approaches to these points). This was especially noticeable in “Double Agent” (4th title in the series released back in 2006 on Xbox 360) within the terrorist cell undercover missions which were very frustrating due having too many options which was shame as it was a great concept with the theme of infiltrating a terrorist organization from within. This problem would also occur for me within certain sections of levels where I wouldn’t know where to go, let alone know what to do once you reach your destination, walking to every corner hopeing it’s the correct location to progress the level. This is due to bad level signposting and Game “Mise-en-scene” which I spoke about in some detail in this blog (link of the post at the bottom/end of this post) You should check it out if you haven’t read it yet. Basically in a nutshell, some games lack the logic for giving the player direction throughout the game world making the player feel lost or disconnected with the game’s universe. This is also referred as the technique/computer tool “Director agent” which controls the perimeters of the camera movement for every action, the player does or every section of the game like with resident evil as a good example.

Here is another area, which I think the new “Splinter Cell” has addressed so well within it’s new cinematic direction with the mission objectives projected across the background as creative director says in the demo “One of our missions is to keep you immersed in our world and make the narrative move at a fast pace”. I think they have already achieved that not just because how cinematic and atmospheric (creative and artistic aspect of the game) but their use of the placement of the camera angles and the mission objectives in the background (design aspects using “director agents”) for signposting, giving the player direction keeping the fast pace up.

I think they been very clever with narrative and scenario for this game as I’m actually interested in the main character of “Sam fisher”. They have given him a sense of life and purpose, driven towards motive. I want to invest in this story; I want to know who the guy is in the toilet was, why Sam Fisher's daughter has been killed? Why is he so pissed off? I’ve connected it straight away, I guess it was like what I was saying earlier as it's over-exaggerated and melodramatic enough translate Sam Fisher’s story and state of mind. Lots of games are using similar methods, from the use of “director agents” like “Uncharted 2”, watch the video below if you haven’t seen it yet.



“Uncharted 2” gives a great sense of life and personality through the main character and how each event has it’s own unique character animation making it exciting and fun plotting along a simple narrative/signposting for level progression giving the illusion of being real character within realistic eniviroment like action movie. The game mostly (judging by the 1st title I’ve played) uses audio as sense of signposting and character development as he would say one liners related to the current situcation like “Be careful, big drop” as you jump off edge of a cliff just like action movie which works really well. This is most common/typical use of “director agent” within action games but within the context of “Uncharted” it works as “Nathan Drake” is such interesting cool character although it’s one of cheapest tricks in the book.

Back to “Splinter Cell”, I think it’s really interesting how they come up their own way of introducing narrative and the use of “director agent”. Most impressive element of this game isn’t just the new content/context of the game but how they all fits and co-exists within the “Splinter Cell” universe without feeling awkward or forced and how it has it’s own style and own voice using narrative in a new creative way.

Jonesy

Related Links:
My previous blog post about “Mise en scene” within games –
http://jonesyvison.blogspot.com/2008/07/good-bad-and-ugly-final-scene.html

Article by “Sande Chen” who worked wrote and designed “The Witcher” which is about what “Director agents” are - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3736/towards_more_meaningful_games_a_.php