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.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
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.
-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.
Monday, May 4, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)