Why do so many games demand players to be proficient in using half a dozen (or more) different buttons? Why don't they design games to use fewer buttons?
One trick I'd like to see used more in games, is allowing a single button to have a small list of abilities attached to it. Each time the button is pressed, it cycles to the next power. An example of this type of trick, is the Combo Button in GodHand. This sort of design can add an element of "deck building" in setting up the power list, which is part of the reason I like it.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Despair
Might of sorrow,
Might of pain.
Might of having nothing to gain.
It's hard to fight,
Without a light.
Nothing to hope for, nothing to gain,
Just a lingering sorrow, and pain.
Might of pain.
Might of having nothing to gain.
It's hard to fight,
Without a light.
Nothing to hope for, nothing to gain,
Just a lingering sorrow, and pain.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Difficulty
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3660/the_designers_notebook_.php?page=1
Personally, I think it's best to mix dynamic difficulty adjustment with player set difficulty. Basically, just let the players adjust the minimum and maximum difficulty.
An important thing to include with dynamic difficulty adjustment, is some form of reward or encouragement for doing well and reaching the higher difficulties. An example might be Godhand which announces difficulty increases with applause providing a warning (enemies will be harder now) and a reward (you're doing awesome!). Unfortunately though, Godhand doesn't offer a truly easy "easy" mode.
Personally, I think it's best to mix dynamic difficulty adjustment with player set difficulty. Basically, just let the players adjust the minimum and maximum difficulty.
An important thing to include with dynamic difficulty adjustment, is some form of reward or encouragement for doing well and reaching the higher difficulties. An example might be Godhand which announces difficulty increases with applause providing a warning (enemies will be harder now) and a reward (you're doing awesome!). Unfortunately though, Godhand doesn't offer a truly easy "easy" mode.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Webcomics
http://www.webcomicsnation.com/hammock/estancia/series.php?view=archive&chapter=6545
I guess I like weird stories.
I guess I like weird stories.
Thank you to whomever...
http://doublebuffered.com/2008/05/09/ea-does-something-right/
I'm very glad to hear that EA is switching to a one-time authentication instead of that every 10 days horror they proposed originally. I can actually accept the new policy, yay!.
I'm very glad to hear that EA is switching to a one-time authentication instead of that every 10 days horror they proposed originally. I can actually accept the new policy, yay!.
Thursday, May 08, 2008
A reason to boycott EA
http://doublebuffered.com/2008/05/07/eas-new-copy-protection/
If they really put that kind of copy protection on Spore, then I guess I'll just have to not buy it. I'd been looking forward to Spore, but that kind of copy protection just offends me.
If they really put that kind of copy protection on Spore, then I guess I'll just have to not buy it. I'd been looking forward to Spore, but that kind of copy protection just offends me.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Some interesting posts on game design.
http://doublebuffered.com/2008/02/28/18/
This guy impresses me. The quality of his posts and insights on game design are better than I'm accustomed to seeing by quite a lot.
More stuff:
http://doublebuffered.com/2006/12/31/integrating-talk-and-game/
This guy impresses me. The quality of his posts and insights on game design are better than I'm accustomed to seeing by quite a lot.
More stuff:
http://doublebuffered.com/2006/12/31/integrating-talk-and-game/
Classes vs skills
http://doublebuffered.com/2008/03/13/character-classes-and-skills-why-they-suck/
I can definitely agree that more games need a way to separate role and style in character creation. I often end up going against type in class based systems, because my preferred style/role combination doesn't get much (if any) support.
The obvious answer to the issue of having to choose between solo or group character design, is to allow easy respecing. If a person can easily switch between a group or solo setup, then they are no longer constrained to just one or the other.
I believe the primary issue with having characters that only work in group play, is the issue of being able to make a character that is dependent upon the presence of other characters to work right. The two examples I can think of right away, is the tank who needs others to deal damage for them, and the blaster who needs a tank (or really good healer) to protect them. A part of this issue is the fact that two specialists is almost always better than two generalists.
The most straight-forward fix I can see to the dependency issue, is to give each character a minimum level of damage and defense. One way to do this, is to make offense and defense no longer a trade off, making choices more a matter of style (I would consider any power that reduces damage taken, such as knockdown or knockback in CoH to be defensive).
One way to make solo characters more capable in groups, is to ensure that all characters have a way to contribute their defensive abilities to the aid of others. If their defense only protects them, it becomes useless any time they are not attacked. It would also be useful to give solo characters or powers, advantages that only appear while grouped. Normally, a power that raises the characters damage is less effective in a group than one that lowers enemy resistance (due to the other party members benefiting from the latter) but if the damage raising power provides a larger boost when allies are around, then it no longer suffers that weakness.
Making group characters more capable solo runs into issues with flavor. If someone wants to play a character whose concept is ally buffer that has little real power themselves, trying to make them capable alone doesn't make much sense. One solution to the issue, is to offer NPC allies for people who want a party, but either can't find one, or just don't wish to deal with real people.
I can definitely agree that more games need a way to separate role and style in character creation. I often end up going against type in class based systems, because my preferred style/role combination doesn't get much (if any) support.
The obvious answer to the issue of having to choose between solo or group character design, is to allow easy respecing. If a person can easily switch between a group or solo setup, then they are no longer constrained to just one or the other.
I believe the primary issue with having characters that only work in group play, is the issue of being able to make a character that is dependent upon the presence of other characters to work right. The two examples I can think of right away, is the tank who needs others to deal damage for them, and the blaster who needs a tank (or really good healer) to protect them. A part of this issue is the fact that two specialists is almost always better than two generalists.
The most straight-forward fix I can see to the dependency issue, is to give each character a minimum level of damage and defense. One way to do this, is to make offense and defense no longer a trade off, making choices more a matter of style (I would consider any power that reduces damage taken, such as knockdown or knockback in CoH to be defensive).
One way to make solo characters more capable in groups, is to ensure that all characters have a way to contribute their defensive abilities to the aid of others. If their defense only protects them, it becomes useless any time they are not attacked. It would also be useful to give solo characters or powers, advantages that only appear while grouped. Normally, a power that raises the characters damage is less effective in a group than one that lowers enemy resistance (due to the other party members benefiting from the latter) but if the damage raising power provides a larger boost when allies are around, then it no longer suffers that weakness.
Making group characters more capable solo runs into issues with flavor. If someone wants to play a character whose concept is ally buffer that has little real power themselves, trying to make them capable alone doesn't make much sense. One solution to the issue, is to offer NPC allies for people who want a party, but either can't find one, or just don't wish to deal with real people.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Limiting focus fire in EVE
An idea occurred to me regarding the restriction of focusing fire. One way to limit the effectiveness of focused fire, is to limit how fast ships can die. My favorite idea for this was to limit how fast structure could be lost. This could provide a minimum survival time for ships, as well as differentiating structure from armor and shields, by adding a significant difference in function. (An example of how it could work: a ship that gets shot for 5k damage to structure, might lose it's structure at a rate of 1k/second instead of having the 5k taken off immediately.) I'd recommend having structure repair then reduce the damage queue before providing any increase in structure.
If one wishes to require that the ship remain under fire while the structure goes down, the a simple way to enforce that, is to make ships not die as long as shield or armor is above a certain threshold (thus forcing people to not let their opponent rebuild their shields or armor).
Other ideas I had included various forms of invulnerability time (10 seconds after first taking damage; a module that triggers limited invulnerability each time a damage taken threshold was reached; etc...), but I greatly dislike invulnerability time in general.
If one wishes to require that the ship remain under fire while the structure goes down, the a simple way to enforce that, is to make ships not die as long as shield or armor is above a certain threshold (thus forcing people to not let their opponent rebuild their shields or armor).
Other ideas I had included various forms of invulnerability time (10 seconds after first taking damage; a module that triggers limited invulnerability each time a damage taken threshold was reached; etc...), but I greatly dislike invulnerability time in general.
Random Thoughts: Hellgate
While playing Hellgate: London, I've come to realize that a large part of the enjoyment for me, is finding neat effects that I like. An example is the Surge Caster (later, the Storm Caller) which basically creates a field of electrical mayhem around me. Meanwhile, the Shockshell grenade launcher was horribly boring to me, though I found it effective.
I wonder how much the strategies Casino slot machines use to keep players entertained and playing, might work in other video games. Essentially, big visual stimuli, and positive sounds can encourage continued playing. If the view itself is entertaining, players may demand less depth.
I actually wish I could automate many of the powers in Hellgate: London. I always find it awkward to try and manually activate more than one or two powers in games.
My general enjoyment in games tends to come from two separate parts: Planning a strategy, and watching the outcome. In Hellgate, the planning is often early in character development, then the gameplay is largely the watching part, seeing how well the idea works. For me, making this entertaining, is more about two key things: clearly offering information (so I can figure out how well/poorly the plan works, and why), and having easy, enjoyable visuals and sounds. I'm more interested in watching and learning, than focusing on skill (such as: practicing my speed and coordination).
I believe that my tendency to lose interest in a character after finishing the main plot, is due to my lack of interest in the gameplay itself. By the time I've finished the main game, I've figured out how effective the strategy is, and need no more time to learn. All that's left, is to try something different from the beginning again.
I wonder how much the strategies Casino slot machines use to keep players entertained and playing, might work in other video games. Essentially, big visual stimuli, and positive sounds can encourage continued playing. If the view itself is entertaining, players may demand less depth.
I actually wish I could automate many of the powers in Hellgate: London. I always find it awkward to try and manually activate more than one or two powers in games.
My general enjoyment in games tends to come from two separate parts: Planning a strategy, and watching the outcome. In Hellgate, the planning is often early in character development, then the gameplay is largely the watching part, seeing how well the idea works. For me, making this entertaining, is more about two key things: clearly offering information (so I can figure out how well/poorly the plan works, and why), and having easy, enjoyable visuals and sounds. I'm more interested in watching and learning, than focusing on skill (such as: practicing my speed and coordination).
I believe that my tendency to lose interest in a character after finishing the main plot, is due to my lack of interest in the gameplay itself. By the time I've finished the main game, I've figured out how effective the strategy is, and need no more time to learn. All that's left, is to try something different from the beginning again.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Impossible Ideal
The image of the ideal forever haunts.
An impossible thing that doesn't let go.
Forever hating what is, for what isn't.
It can be a creative drive, or an unending misery.
An impossible thing that doesn't let go.
Forever hating what is, for what isn't.
It can be a creative drive, or an unending misery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)