Withdrawal

There's always something that you love to do. It might be reading books, golfing, or playing video games. Having a hobby of some sort is always a good idea, it's something to turn to in order to take your mind of any issues for awhile and just generally relax. After awhile, your brain becomes accustomed to having that release time. And when you, for whatever reason, can't get that time, you go into withdrawal.

Of course, with any discussion of withdrawal usually comes one of addiction as the two go hand in hand. Addiction is a dirty term, used to blast down the unworthy. Being called an addict can really rub you wrong. This is why it hurts so bad when people accuse video games of turning people into socially rejected addicts who spend their lives in front of computers, instead of say raising a family.

With that, goes the idea that if a video gamer is deprived of games for awhile, he'll go  into a minor coma and drool until he's given his games back. Yes, games are very nasty that way. But think for a minute, what about your own hobbies?

What if you were unable to do the thing you enjoy most during your relaxation time? Maybe you'd have backups, but what if those were unavailable as well? If you were unable to do anything that you considered fun and rewarding during your free time, you may well go nuts too.

If we want to look at things in this light, then everyone is an addict probably. If they're not, then they're probably a very sad person, not enjoying anything in life. Addiction seems to me to be either perfectly natural, or in need of a better definition. Either way, I think that the people who accuse video games this way need to step back and look at their own habits a little more first.

Okay fine, I have to admit, he's got it pretty bad.

Yes, Mom.

This is something we've all said in real life. Even with the most outrageous requests, we almost always give in and allow Mom to force our hand for awhile. Eat your vegetables. Drink your milk. Wipe your bum. We go through this in our real lives, but what about the virtual ones?

I posted awhile ago about annoying support characters, and recently I've been helping my neighbor play through the game containing the classic example of that, "Hey! Listen!". Yes, Ocarina of Time. Looking at the game again, having been awhile since I last played and not being the one playing for once, I've been trying to truly evaluate the merits of what many consider the greatest game of all time. One thing I've noticed, the game forces you into a particular course of action all the time.

It's odd to see, after coming out of more recent games with all their multiple endings and open world sandbox play. After all the thousands of conversation branches possible in Dragon Age, it's amazing to go back and see the day where if you told someone "No" they'll repeat themselves until you say yes (to say nothing of this particular neighbor's speaking habits in addition to the game's). Often, choices are not really choices, but really seem thrown in just for the sake of making sure the player is paying attention.

To be honest though, there's nothing wrong with linearity. There's a story to be told, and there's only one way to tell it. Fair enough. Plus, even though the story is linear, progression is not so rigid as the designers intended. I for one, discovered it is possible to skip the entire second dungeon as an adult in Ocarina until you've done all the other dungeons. What you get from that dungeon is not needed in the following dungeons, but is required to complete the game. But it still feels fun to have Navi yelling at you to go to the mountain when you're way past that.

Also, at times the game is rather open about how to proceed. Even "That cloud over Death Mountain... there's something strange about it...." gives you no hint as to how to do anything once you've gotten there. It's nice to see after all these games today that blatantly tell you the answer to see one that points you in the right direction and leaves you to find the answers there. It also saves the player from the pitfall of many open ended games, "Where do I go now? What do I do now that I'm here? What am I accomplishing exactly?".

It's nice to find the flexibility within the guided tour of Hyrule that Ocarina provides.The best games I find are the ones that let you run free, while maintaining a clear ultimate goal, and Ocarina provides.

No, that's not my Mom, but Princess Zelda sure acts like it.

"Do you have it? "No." "Do you have it?" "No." "Do you have it?" etc.

Limited Audience Games

With any game, movie, book, or really any product, you ought to know your target audience. Do you want to target teenage boys, or little old ladies? Once you've identified where you want to steer your game towards, then you can start tailoring the experience to be more appealing to your target. In this case you would want to make sure that Grand Theft Little Old Lady includes as much zombie killing as possible, while Tea(n) Boy Party includes as many different tea flavors as possible with an accurate timer to make certain the tea comes out just right. Now you... wait a second....

A lot of work and research goes into this area. Most of the time, game developers make an effort to reach out to as many people as possible. This usually ends in one of two cases: 1. It's too general, so lots try it, but none like it. 2. The wider appeal thing has no effect and only the normal audience plays.

But, what if you were to turn things the other way? Rather than try to have mass appeal, have massive appeal within a narrow focus. This might not seem the best marketing tactic, but this can result in a rather strong following that will keep you going. Plus, who says you can't make multiple games with this idea and get several focused groups behind you? Still sound crazy? Well, one could argue it's already been done by Wisdom Tree with their game Bible Adventures, but I won't go there. Though I must mention I find it interesting that Nintendo wouldn't approve the game, so like good Christians they licensed a voltage zapper to bypass the security on the NES. Good one guys.

Regardless, what if you took the small audience idea one step further? What if you made a game... for a single person?

Again, crazy, but think about it for a second. Obviously, you would only go through this much work for someone you know rather well (or who is paying you rather well). In that case, you know your target audience very well and could tailor the game to be exactly the sort of thing they'd love to play. Put yourself on the receiving end for a minute and think how great it would be to have someone make your perfect game just for you.

I mention this because I just began such a project yesterday. A custom made game for someone I've known my whole life, so I think I will be able to make it just the way he wants it (for a video game, I think he'd prefer a book, but that's not what I do now is it?). Now, I'm clearly not out to make money on this game, and any developer that is probably shouldn't invest much in a game for a single person. But what about making a game, or anything, for someone you love? An old friend? Yourself? What about making a game without thinking about profits? What about making a game... for fun?

I think the small audience idea (and when I say small, I'm talking tens of thousands still, instead of millions) has potential. But I also think that regardless of audience size, designers need to sit back a bit and think about what they're making and why they're making it. Nothing kills the fun of a job like doing it because you have to, instead of because you love to. And believe me, the difference shows in the end result.

And here we have an example of the other end of the limited audience spectrum: Making a game just for yourself and publishing it worldwide. It seems the designer on this had this idea up his craw and didn't listen to any ones input. That's the only reason I can think of for this game being the way it is.

Red, White, and Blue

Color has existed in games for a long time now. Computers have supported colors for ages. Consoles got them in the early 90's, but handheld gaming platforms came last in the race, not getting much prior to the Gameboy Color in 1998. Color, on all platforms, has become standard, and is only lacking or skewed in certain situations like a flashback, or if the designer is making an artistic statement. Because color is an assumed trait of video games, designers have frequently tried to capitalize on it by working color into gameplay.

The first real example of this I encountered was Link's Awakening DX, which was a remake of Link's Awakening that was specifically made for the Gameboy Color. In this game, they added a new dungeon appropriately named the Color Dungeon. As the name implies, most of the puzzles and enemies were focused around color. Turn all the switches red, knock the green enemy into the green hole, and kill the boss by hitting him until the turned red, which he was kind enough to even tell you himself. Most of these would be difficult or impossible to decipher in monochrome. This is why the entrance is guarded by two skeletons who won't let you in unless you can tell them the color of their clothes. Completing this dungeon rewards you with the choice of red clothes, which doubles your damage dealt, or blue clothes that halve the damage you take. What I find interesting, is that if you walk up to the skeleton guards while playing on an old Gameboy, they will tell you to go away, without giving you the option to even guess which is wearing red or blue. It also bothers me, that the boss is defeated by turning him red, which you do by hitting him a lot, which you don't need color to do.

One of the puzzles in the dungeon that would be hard without color.

Just for kicks, here's the boss from the dungeon. The first 15 seconds is an intro, but give the first 15 seconds of actual video a try. I enjoy how the boss tells you how to beat him, and how the color is fairly irrelevant.


The most recent encounter I've had with color meeting gameplay, was in Fable II when I finally decided to head into the Cursed Snow globe Downloadable Content(DLC). The world was devoid of color, except for my weapons. My sword glowed blue and my gun yellow, matching the colors normally associated with them in the game. I quickly bumped into a set of blue ghosts. Being a Magic (red) user, I blasted the ghosts for about five minutes before I gave up and used the matching blue sword. They quickly fell. You had to match the color you attacked with to the enemy. This culminated in a final battle of sorts where all three types attacked me at once and I was forced to swap my weapons quickly. After that, color returned to the world as normal.

The Snow globe world and it's blue denizens.

Even when color is not so strictly matched to gameplay, color is still often used to convey information quickly. A classic example is if an enemy's name appears in red, it is hostile. For the most part this would seem a fine way to add a little more to the gaming experience, or chop the amount of information the Interface needs to display. There's just one problem though, some people are color blind.

The most common type of color blindness is Red-green, which Wikipedia tells me affects 7 to 10% of all males. That's a rather large portion of players, particularly when you add that it is more common in men, and men make up most of the gaming population. That means that out of ten players, one is likely to be unable to distinguish between the red hostile and the green friendly, taking a few more hits to the faceplate before it sinks in.

I'm a little more sensitive to this problem than most, not because I have color problems, but my Dad does. It made playing Gauntlet: Dark Legacy more interesting I will have to admit, namely because the red explosive barrels, the green poisonous barrels, and the brown treasure barrels all looked the same to him. After getting blown up, the game told him to "Shoot red barrels from a distance" and he had no idea what it was talking about. He then unleashed poisonous gas upon us all and when I told him not to shoot the green barrels he responded, "There's green barrels?" Given that we were a third of the way through the game already and he hadn't noticed, we decided that I would handle all barrel openings from then on.

How do you fix this problem? World of Warcraft has a colorblind mode where the hostile and friendly tags are shown in the tool tips. Dungeons and Dragons Online allows you to change the color of all the chat channels and damage texts, allowing you to customize them to colors you can more easily distinguish. Most games however, do nothing at all. It is only 10%, but it's a 10% that will greatly appreciate the extra effort on your part.

Barrel, Barrel on the wall... who is the brownest of you all?

The Joke(r)'s On You

I just finished seeing The Dark Knight for the first time (finally). Upon some reflection of that movie, and movies in general, I've ended up thinking about plot holes. Mind you, I enjoyed The Dark Knight very much, but there are a few unanswered holes. Namely, where did the Joker come from? Now, in this case, it actually works in the movies favor. Giving us nothing to go on (the Joker gives us a couple flashbacks, but really he can't be relied on) actually makes the character creepier. That something like this could just spring into existence is quite a shock, and adds mystery to the character and the movie as a whole.

This is a rare case where such a tool is used appropriately. Too often in games plot holes try to breeze by unexpected. Unfortunately, it either completely fails to do so, or does only the first time. The latter case only makes you feel like an idiot when all your friends point it out, or you're attempting to explain the game to them only to realize you can't (thank you Geist).

The alternate side to being unable to explain your own plot, is covering up a hole when you shouldn't. As I said at the beginning, not knowing the Joker's background makes him scarier. What if, right after the first couple of scenes with the Joker, Batman figured out who he was and read off his whole backstory to us? The mystery would be lost, and the character would be less powerful. In the game Condemned, the people of the city go mad and start attacking each other. Even after the horror game is finished, no explanation is given. In Condemned 2, they explain in the first chapter that someone has hung hubcaps on the walls which make a loud and annoying noise, driving sleepless people crazy (never mind how you get hubcaps to make noise 24/7). As one of my favorite reviewers said, "Thank you Condemned 2, I was just about to get interested."

Plot holes, when they don't add needed mystery, usually only make the developers look bad. As I implied before, can't you explain your own plot? I've noticed an increase lately in plot holes, Super Mario Galaxy 2's complete failure to acknowledge the first game being the largest and most recent. I think writers are trying too hard to come up with new and exciting plots (or in Mario's case recycling the same one for the last fifteen years or so) that they lose track of their own loose ends. Having a complex plot is fine, but make sure people can still follow it. And personally, I can't accept the "It's open to interpretation" excuse. In that case, I feel like I'm supposed to make up half the plot myself. Braid, I'm looking smack at you.

Of course, gameplay is the central most important thing to a video game. But, like so many other things, the plot can make the difference between a good game and a great game. Between a game people play once, and one people play year after year. Between a game people are over, and one people clamour for a sequel to. Between a bad game that everyone returns after an hour, and one people force their way to the end of (an ugly possibility, but still...).

One of the most out there (not there) plots I've ever heard of. Fortunately, the game itself is awesome.

The One Ring

In playing Dungeons and Dragons Online, I have run into a dilemma. There is a series of dungeons that you must do one right after the other, each of which can take about 45 minutes depending on difficulty and how well your group performs. With three of these in a row, it is quite a time commitment to get through to the end. I was lucky, and got a good group on my first run through, allowing me to complete the entire series on the highest difficulty, thereby earning the best rewards. Now I am poised to level beyond that content, and seek new quests. But, I don't want to. Why not? Because I didn't get a Ring of Feathers.

The Ring of Feathers, when worn, causes you character to fall slowly, allowing you to steer better in midair and take no damage upon landing, regardless of the height you fell from. The advantages of this are obvious to a player, since there are a large number of places that require accurate jumping to get to and also one could then just leap down a wall at no risk instead of climbing. This ring is the only item in the game to grant this effect permanently while worn at level 1. Other rings with this effect exist, but the require very high levels and are randomly generated, meaning you have an equal chance to pull that as any other item from any given chest in the game. This is the only ring with no level requirement, and to have a set chest. Ergo, the ring is highly sought after, not just to use, but to sell.

The usual cost of one of these rings when buying from the player based market, is a staggering 1,200,000 gold pieces. In the many hours I have spent playing this character, I have only saved up 8,000 gold pieces.

So, you either have the choice to farm up 1,200,000 gold, or rerun this quest series over and over until you get the ring. That's about two hours worth of questing for a CHANCE to find this ring (in of course the very last chest). I can't even fathom how long it would take to get a hold of 1,200,000 gold.

And then, the player has a final choice, don't get the stupid ring.

There are many rings with much more useful effects for many characters. There are plenty of easily obtainable items that provide the effect temporarily with limited uses, which would leave you a free ring slot. There is only one place where the ring is frequently considered required, a dungeon properly named The Pit.

Yet, despite this, when the ring goes up on the market, it is usually sold in a matter of hours, if not minutes.

I have seen full groups of level 20's (the quest is level 4-7) blast through the quest line over and over until they get one.

I have heard people cry (literally) over the voice chat when the ring doesn't drop for them.

I have run this series about 8 times over multiple characters, I have never seen this ring drop for anyone.

The last group I was in for this spent most of the time discussing addiction to games, how you could spend that time raising a family, how people in Everquest 1 died from playing instead of eating, and yet: this was their third run that day.

Speaking of addiction, this is where it comes from. Highly sought after rewards that never appear in that chest. Without rare drops, there would be no prestige to owning a piece of gear. There would be no one better than anyone else. So we have to have rare rewards to give players something to strive for, otherwise there's no sense of achieving anything. But, there still needs to be ways to reward the player with a sense of accomplishment that doesn't drag on for hours. You might think at first that this is exactly what keeps people playing MMOs, and you'd be right. But I've also seen so many people leave because they realize that these games are nothing but a massive time sink.

We need to improve the Rewards VS Time ratio. It'll let people move on through you game, and stop them from losing interest. A possible solution to my particular example? Give the ring a descent chance to drop (say 30%) but change it so that it cannot be traded. You want your ring? Go get it yourself.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got a ring to hunt.

My... Precioussssss....

Lights! Camera! Act... Wait, where's the camera?

The camera, friend to players and foe to developers. In case your not quite sure, the camera is what the player sees "through". It is their viewpoint on a given situation. The friend and foe idea comes from the fact that a good camera system can be rather hard to make, but the player needs to see what is going on. Therefore, a well designed camera system is critical, and a poor camera can cripple an otherwise great game.

Example One, Bad Camera: Neverwinter Nights 2. Simply put, the camera in NWN2 is abysmal and really drags the game down. There are three camera modes. The first (theoretically) gives you the ability to look any way you want, while your character moves in any direction independent of the direction of the camera. Problem, you must click where you want your character to go. How do you click where you're not looking? The second is a pure top down view called strategy mode. Again, you click but at least you usually can with this view, though you must keep pushing the mouse to the edge of the screen to see what's ahead. Problem, when you're looking down from kinda far out on a dark field at night with slow moving zombies, how do you tell what/where anything is? The last mode, which I use, is driving camera. Now you steer the character with the keyboard and the camera follows behind. However, the pitch of the camera up and down is very sensitive, making it very hard to change accurately when pushing the mouse against the top or bottom of the screen. The camera is also bound by any roof you may be under, making it ridiculous to use inside. You can also push  right or left with the mouse to look around, but then the camera either swings sickeningly back into place, or your character flips around in place. Good one guys. Several times I've charged into battle facing the wrong way.

Example Two, Okay Camera: Dungeons and Dragons Online. I've been playing this a lot lately and so it comes to mind when thinking of video game things. The camera in DDO is as I said, Okay, nothing more. And here, Okay is much better than bad, and perfectly functional. The camera is locked behind your head. You can move it up or down quite accurately and left and right. However, if you move your character the camera will stay put but your character will move in the direction the camera is now facing. If you hold both the mouse buttons and the movement keys you can look around while moving. A bit impractical, but there is rarely a reason to watch constantly to your character's right while running full speed. There is a bit of an exploit with this camera though. You can zoom rather far out. With the camera zoomed out, I can look around a corner to see if there is a group of orcs ahead. The orcs have no way to see me, I can thoroughly examine them and prepare, and my character is facing a wall. Um... yeah.

Example Three, Good Camera: The Legend of Zelda Windwaker. For the most part, all the Zelda games have a good camera, but WW sticks out for an extra feature. First of all, the camera generally stays behind Link, but if you make a major change in direction it will only adjust when Link starts to run off screen. It's smooth and slow, but not too slow. You can also with the touch of a button (that your finger is probably already on) snap the camera right behind Link's head again. You can also lock onto a single enemy keeping the camera always focused on it. Where WW breaks away from the style of every other Zelda is that hitting the C stick breaks the camera into free mode. By tilting the stick you can rotate the camera all the way around Link, at a speed varying by how much you tilt the stick. By tapping that button again, you return to normal camera. This pretty much allows you to look at whatever you need to or explore your options easily.

All of these problems were fairly moot back in the 2D days, but now 3D has been the standard for a long time, and the player needs to be able to see things (often quickly) in order to succeed. A little extra time and polish on this aspect of your game will keep your player's frustration level down a bit. A lack of time and polish here and your game will be notorious for a bad camera. It's one of those things that usually goes un-thanked when done right, and draws a lot of hatred when done wrong. Just like an IT job.

Look out below! (Or judging by Link's expression, maybe we'd rather not see what's down there.)