Valve makes a misstep: L4D2

I'll write about the current events surrounding the Left 4 Dead community this week.

At E3 Valve announced L4D2. The community's reaction can be summarized in this highly entertaining and informative video:



I really don't understand why Valve has not continued their "service" idea which has worked so well for Team Fortress 2. In an interview back before TF2 came out, Gabe Newell explained further: Valve was looking to offer a product that was not just a stand-alone game. Instead Valve is looking to offer a whole "service" to fans post-release.
In TF2 this has been successful. The D-Team has released practically a whole expansion pack's worth of material...free so far. New maps, weapons, and balance and bug fixes that go far beyond any normal FPS. And this strategy has brought them rewards: the game is still going strong and garnering new players at a ferocious rate.
So why the switch in gear for their other title in current development, L4D? Well, to start let me just say that the warning signs were there: New content has been decidedly weak (compared to TF2), and the community took notice. Countless posts went up on the Steam forums lamenting the apparent inattentiveness of the L4D D-team. With many L4D fans looking across the fence at the TF2 community, which enjoyed large updates of free, high quality content every three months or so, frustration grew. This build-up only made the announcement of L4D 2 worse. To the community, it feels like a stab in the back. It is hard to put it better than the above video: "You mean we paid $50 to essentially beta-test your game??"
I can certainly see how it felt like a beta test. One of the few flaws of the original game was that though it was long on replayability and quality, it was short on depth and variety. From my point of view, Valve put out L4D a bit unfinished. Though it was probably worth $30 (which it is down to now), the lack of maps and various other elements was noticeable. Now, after seeing their game turn into a hit, it seems that some suits in the Valve high office have said "Ok, now go back and do it Right." So that's what they're doing.

9 billion hours

I was reading a book today called "This Gaming Life" (Rossignol, Jim. 2008). By far the most interesting bit I read today was a section called Nine Billion Hours (pg. 102). It was short, and lasted about two pages, but it seemed to put into words some idea that had been in the back of my head for quite some time now. Simply put, the section asks: what if all the hours Windows users have spent playing "Solitaire" (a total of 9 billion hours to date) could be harnessed? Considering that only 20 million hours were required to build the Panama Canal, it is mind boggling to think what could be accomplished with even a fraction of an amount 450 times that.
The man who realized this opportunity, or at least the man who put it in those words, was Luis Van Ahn. The rest of "Nine billion hours" discusses his work in taking advantage of all those, effectively, wasted man-hours. It occurred to him that the way to get the most bang for his buck was to get users to play a game, accomplishing a task along the way which was easy for humans but difficult for computers. He settled on the task of describing photos. This is an uncommonly good choice in my opinion. Analyzing and describing a picture is something that is trivial to a human but impossible to a computer.
The game which Van Ahn designed was also exceptionally clever in my opinion. His game was called The ESP Game. It is a browser based game which connects two human players over the internet. They don't communicate at all aside from participating in the same mini-game: try to describe a random picture. They score points for describing a photo in the same way their anonymous partner did. I can see how this would actually be a compelling game.

Highs and lows of sniping play

I posted this in the Steam team fortress 2 forum.

Hello so as I was listening to the developer commentary the other day I heard the developers dicussing the idea of "highs" and
"lows" in gameplay, in the context of ubers. I guess they meant that when you use an uber it is a high point in your enjoyment because you get to go on a killing streak, and it is also a high point for the defenders as they flee in terror and pull out all stops to counter the uber.

There are highs and lows to playing every class. Particularly when you are on a bad team, you are going to have more lows (typically accompanied by frequent death) and less highs (killing streaks). The reason for this is that, as I'm sure you have noticed, the "momentum" (as I like to call it) is much different for losing teams than it is for winning teams. NO MATTER your ability as a player, it seems nearly impossible to do well when your team is getting rolled. In turn, it is almost impossible not to have fun when your team is pwning the other team.

Now to my point: I believe that sniper is a popular class because he is much less affected by the natural "highs" and "lows" that accompany normal play. Consider the soldier for instance: how well he does is pretty directly related to how well his team does. Don't believe me? Check the scoreboard in a match which is heavily in favor of one side or the other. It is no coincidence that the winning team heavily outscores the losing team. This relationship is not the result of one team just having better people across the board: the causality goes the other, because you notice that the same soldier (in terms of skill) scores drastically differently in different situations. Now contrast the soldier's experience with that of the sniper. The sniper is much less affected by his team's fortunes, mainly because he is often removed from the battle. For him, it doesnt matter much whether his team is pushing the opposition back or whether it's the other way around. He still takes the same shots and hits about the same number of people either way.

Secondly, the sniper tends to have less lows in game play on the whole; Every kill is a high for him, but he dies less often than a suicide pyro or a soldier ever would.

Conclusion: People tend to switch to sniper when they are not getting the right balance of highs and lows from other classes because it feels comfortable and safe. Sniping is popular because you can do it anytime and anywhere and not suffer from the problems that come with one team doing very poorly.

Early impressions: World of Warcraft

I had to download a WoW trial account in order to try the game for my upcoming response paper.

So far, it is dead boring. There really isn't much thrill on double clicking on an enemy, then waiting for it to die. It just doesn't do it for me. Sure there are other skills- but the variety is dismal, at least for the first few hours or so, which is all I've played. It probably does not help that I played Lord of the Rings Online a couple months ago, thus, I have seen pretty much everything this game has to offer, only prettier. Also, even though I selected a "high" population server, I have not interacted with anyone in my first few hours. I have only seen a handful of people, who do not respond to anything I say.

Overall, I can see how LOTRO is pretty much exactly like WoW, only it offered much better graphics, a far more plentiful and varied amount of skills early on, and more player interaction.

I understand how WoW might get more enjoyable in higher levels, but I don't think I would ever degrade myself by suffering hour after hour of this crap just to get to something fun. In the words of Zero Punctuation's Yahtzee: "Fun" that thing you used to have before video games started feeling like a second job. *shows pic of WoW

One more thing

On reflection I neglected to mention the single most obvious common ground between Pixar and Valve. This is probably the subconscious reason I started thinking about the subject in the first place.

This common ground is the fact that they rose to critical acclaim for adapting well extablished storytelling norms from movies to their own genre. Pixar was one of the first CGI animation studios to realize that just because the graphics were computer generated didn't mean that you couldn't do all the same things traditional movies did. As a result of them embracing this idea they were able to create classics like Toy Story, which combined the advantages of CGI animation with the vital attributes of film- like story, facial expressions, camera angling etc....

As for Valve, their Half Life series was one of the first to ustilize a new method of story telling in first person shooter games. Though I haven't played the original half life, I have played HL2, and from my experience I can say that Valve created an immersive action experience like none other. In the same way that Pixar adapted the conventions of film for its own unique projects, HL steals much from action movie models- but improves on them in significant ways. The most obvious example of this movie idea in Half life 2 for me is the opening sequence of the origianl HL2. In this sequence you are dropped in a train with no clue how you got there or why you're there- you just are left to your own devices, with the level design carefully crafted to lead along a linear path. I first began to feel like I was in a movie when I entered a house only to find that a raid was in motion. I frantically dodged guards, and eventually wound up on the rooftop, and there was a roof top chase- with bullets nipping at my heels the entire way- which was straight out of any action movie.

Both Valve's and Pixar's willingness to borrow from the movie genres has worked to their benefit. It has allowed them to make uniquely fun experiences.

How valve is like Pixar

Consistently satisfying entertainment. This is what all entertainment companies strive for and which very few achieve. Those that do succeed- I am thinking specifically of Pixar and Valve, will usually become extremely popular and respected by community and industry alike. Let me name a few things that both these companies have achieved:
-Revolutionized their field to some extent. With pixar, they basically invented successful CGI filmmaking, especially as family fare. With Valve, their Half life series rethought story telling in First person shooters, with nearly every such game since owing something to it. They also created the most popular shooter in the world by a huge margin, Counter strike.

-Consistently turn out quality content. Not only did each of these companies revolutionize their medium, they have a nearly flawless track record of creations to date. Besides Half life and CS, Valve has also turned out creative and financial powerhouses like Portal and Team Fortress 2. As for pixar, I am consistenly amazed every year as their studio produces another highly polished, heartfelt and funny movie that is truly for all ages. Most companies are lucky if they hit on a single good idea (like Shrek or something), but Pixar continually rolls out original and successful material on an annual basis.

By now it is clear that I am quite enamoured of these two companies. Let me delve a little bit into why I think they have been so successfull. My observations are largely based not only on experiencing the movies/games, but on the plentiful developer commentary left behind by BOTH companies.

Both companies seem to take a big picture viewpoint to their work constantly, making sure they have a vision and that it still fits the product they are making. This is sometimes reflected by the fact that they do massive rewrites. For instance, in its development process, Team Fortress 2 went through a massive overhaul in design and appearance halfway through its ten year development process. In particular for Valve, the commentary on their games makes clear that every design decision is driven by their overarching game plan.

They know that accessibility matters. Both companies add plenty of spice to their products, but the core enjoyment must be easily accessible. For Valve that means streamlined and dummy-proofed gameplay which NEVER requires you to go look up how to do something in the manual. For Pixar, it means well defined characters whose very physical characteristics tell you all you need to know about their personality (just look at the characters for the upcoming Up. Certainly, there is depth to every production coming out of these companies, but they also insure that they rarely lose customers to lack of interest.

They aren't afraid to scrap ideas. Having worked in group projects (though nothing of the type these companies do), I know that it can be hard to part with an idea. A good example is the commander idea which they had in Team fortress 2 for some time. The idea was to let one player be the "commander" of the battle, seeing the action as a whole and issuing orders to their fellow team mates. The commentary in TF2 documents the pains the team went to to try and make this idea work, but they eventually scrapped it, realizing it was never going to be realistically feasible.

This is all I have for now. Writing this has sparked a thought I had about the development of TF2 which I will write about in my next post.

Story telling in MMO's

How do you incorporate story telling elements in a game world which you must share with thousands of other players, who are all at various points in their own journeys? This is a substantial obstacle in the design of an MMO, one which has not been satisfactorily resolved in any game I have played to date. In fact, the games with the least problems in this area are ones like Maple Story which pretty much forget the storytelling thing all together. While this doesn't exactly solve the problem, I find it preferable than the efforts of other games like LOTRO or WoW.

The main problem in my mind is that the heroes in all the legends which we love so much (we'll consider star wars as an example) are generally unique and distinguished above everyone else in the world/universe. Luke Skywalker would not be nearly as interesting if there were ten thousand other jedi masters strolling around Mos Eisley. Consequently, any attempt to recreate that hero's journey is going to feel cheapened if there are thousands of other players doing the exact same thing- and in close contact with you no less. This fact is why a game like LOTRO is never going to make you feel like a real hero- no matter how many epic events they try to let you participate in.

There are a few methods which game developers explore in an effort to add a sense of story to their MMO's. The most significant one in my eyes is the instance. Though I haven't played WoW much, I have played LOTRO pretty extensively and have concluded that instances are at least moderately successful. I think the concept is implemented quite well in LOTRO in particular, with recurring characters in your story, excellent cutscenes and sometimes even changes in the gameworld (albeit only visible to you, and they are rather superficial). Developers also use story quests to advance your journey. These main quests are not so impressive in LOTRO. One of the problems is that they are for the most part no different than a side quest. As one review noted, kill-ten-goblins-type quests are best left as side quests.

However good these mechanics are, however, I have never been able to fully immerse myself in my character for an MMO, at least story wise, because the fact remains that everything I could possibly do has been done thousands if not millions of times already. I regard this as a permanent feature for MMO's: their nature is such that it is impossible to provide good story for players, as they can neither isolate the story-driven experience, nor customize it in any significant way.

Team Fortress 2

Team Fortress 2 is an interesting game to me because it pulls of the teamwork aspect amongst strangers better than any first person shooter games I have played to date. While many FPS's have attempted to add elements of team play and such to their games, few succeed, as public online matches inevitably devolve into individual point-whoring and stat-watching rather than any sort of teamwork. TF2 is different to me because it actually delivers on its promise of promoting teamwork. The game does this by carefully crafting the classes so that each one relies on the other, and by adding elements to the game which cause players to interact with their own team much more than normal.
As mentioned, the class design is the most important contributing factor to teamwork, so I'll discuss that first. TF2 is a class-based team shooter. That means that each player in the server belongs to one of two teams and that each player can choose from one of nine classes when they enter battle. TF2 is uniquely successful in making every class distict from the rest. Though I haven't played a ton of FPS's, judging by the reviews it is more successful than almost any other shooter preceding it in its attempt to create varied play styles. Here are a few examples of ways that the class design promotes teamwork
-The medic class. Probably the class design that impresses me most. Though most class based shooters have a "medic" class, that class is universally underpowered and underplayed, and almost never fun to play as. This is because while it may feel good to distribute health for a little while, you bought the game to shoot people, and that's what you'll end up doing most of the time you play. In TF2 the medic is fun to play, because he is as much a part of the action and killing as his teammates are. One of the ways Valve encourages comraderie between the medic and his patients is through the "healing beam" concept. The medic wields a medi-gun (Like a ghostbusters vacuum thing), which fires out a beam that latches onto nearby teammembers, pumping health into them. This is way cooler than dropping health packs and waiting for someone to pick em up. It also fosters a sort of special relationship between medic and patient because of the visual representation. It literally connect two players. It also helps that both the patient and medic are given info about each other's names and health, which further heightens their awareness of their team mate. It can be a truly satisfying experience to go on a big killing spree with a medic by your side the whole time, and after you die and respawn, you'll often go out and try to find that medic buddy again. This is a major way I get added to people's friends list.
-Kill cam. This is another concept that helps to connect players to one another, only this one makes you more aware of the opposing team rather than your own. In most games when you die the camera sits near your point of death just idle while you respawn. In TF2 though, there is a kill-cam. When you die the camera snaps to where the enemy is and holds on them for just one moment, letting you see who killed you, with what weapon, what their name was and so on. This is terrific because you are reminded each and every death that you are playing with real people, not just glorified bots, which the other human players may as well be in other games. These are just two examples of ways that TF2 encourages player interaction in an FPS, and there are many more. It is the most superior "social" FPS I know of in this regard, and these are the qualities that keep me coming back to play over and over. I may post some more about this topic if I can't think of new ideas for the next post. I will say that I am as conscious of this as I am only because of the excellent developer comentary contained in the game, where the devs discuss their game design decisions. This commentary reveals all the thought they put into each decision. If I ever made a game of this type I would definetly consult these vids to help understand how to successfuly link players to each other. Below is one of the videos containing some dev commentary. The whole thing is on youtube somewhere I'm sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0j1qELrrvI

Introduction

I'm writing this post the day after our first class, which was more of an introduction than a lecture. I stil don't have much of an idea what sort of thoughts I'm supposed to put in this game journal but I want to have something in here the first week so I'll just talk a little about possible areas of study.

In the months leading up to this class I have been playing Lord of the Rings Online (LotRO), a MMORPG based on the books by JRR Tolkein (as opposed to the movies, the material of which they are bound not to touch by copyright law). It is modeled quite shamelessly after World of Warcraft, as that game model has proven to be not only fun and addictive, but also financially successful. You can hardly blame the company, Turbine, for developing conservatively considering the pressure to make at least a halfway decent game considering it is based on such source material as Lord of the Rings. In any case, the game turned out all right, and was commended as having much of the same good qualities as WoW and even expanding in some areas. I know that I have enjoyed it immensely and have sunk quite a bit of time into it.

Though I have only played World of Warcraft for a few hours (at a friend's house once), I have gained some sense of it from watching others play and also from internet chatter. In particular, I have a sense of what it's like from the other LotRO players, as many of them are former-WoW players who immigrated to LotRO. One point which has been mentioned to me three or four times has been the claim that WoW players are "meaner" or "less helpful". Similarly, I hear expressed the sentiment that the LotRO community in particular is nicer to newbies and more helpful in general. I keep in mind that these opinions come from the LotRO gamers themselves, and so must be taken with a grain of salt. However, I think there may be some validity to them. In any case, I will get a chance to learn for myself I expect, as we are expected to join in World of Warcraft for at least part of the quarter, something I'll be doing later I expect.

Are gamers in one game "nicer" than in others? It seems possible, if not self-evident. I certainly know that some communities, in any context can tend to be more helpful than others, and I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to communities within games. Is it a good research topic? That's another question indeed. A couple of doubts spring up immediately, such as the viability of being able to quantify or otherwise measure a community's "helpfullness". Some sort of objective techinique would have to be figured out, and I can't see an easy way at this point. Also, while interesting, the topic feels a little constricting; it doesn't deal with virtual worlds so much as the particular cases of WoW and LotRO. At this point, two days into the quarter, I'm still not clear on the scope of project I should pursue, so I may have to change focus at some point in the future.