Mirror's Edge: The Next Oni?

There are a lot of games coming out this month. 'Tis the season, after all. I'm going to talk some about a few recent games, then speak my piece on a very specific one.

I've been keeping myself busy with Fable 2, the Call of Duty 5 (World at War) beta, soon to be Gears of War 2 and Left 4 Dead. Oh, and of course, that work stuff.

Let me first speak my piece on the Call of Duty: World at War beta. The ability to unleash attack dogs (when you get 7 kill without dying) is the coolest thing ever. I mean it. This game definitely hearkens back to the good days of many day long Call of Duty 2 PC LANs, and the addition of all the Call of Duty 4-esque perks, matchmaking, customizaiton, and other things (such as artillery strike or dog attacks) just adds to the fun. When was the last time you were in a firefight, and actually were frightened by the sound of a dog barking, or some big black furry thing jumps in your face and bites it clean off? Absolutely brilliant to have pack of killer dogs running about the battlefield, forcing players to flail wildly. Not to mention they're a great distraction. Will I be getting the new installment in the series? Probably not. The only reason I would really purchase it is for it's Zombie Survival Mode you unlock after beating campaign. Great game, yes. Same as the old games? Pretty much. So, why wouldn't I just get it for the Zombie mode?

Left 4 Dead looks like better. 4 player Zombie coop survival. Is it really a survival Zombie game, as opposed to a twitchy-frag-fest Zombie game? Maybe not, but Zombies and Coop sound like a good bag of excitement. I will be trying the demo when it comes out on the 11th of this month, in which I will decide how good this game really is. Let me know if you need a friend to help frag Zombies.

Moving on to the topic title...

Today I picked up a particularly fascinating little demo off of Xbox Live Marketplace. I hadn't heard of it until I saw a friend playing it.

Mirror's Edge

Apparently Cliff Bleszinski of Epic Games just doesn't understand Mirror's Edge. I know where he's coming from on this. I was incredibly confused at first glance. The game is called a "First Person Shooter Action-Adventure". Some call it a "First Person Runner". The game is basically a Parkour simulation.

The story takes place in some alternate universe or future world where the government has cracked down on lots of things, creating criminals out of most people who weren't before. The game could easily be some sort of comic-book, which the style often seems to mimic. You are a 'messenger' who delivers information to and from said criminals and others in the world. The government is obviously the bad guys.

As a messenger, you must run, jump, climb, vault, and slide your way to destinations. Sounds fairly boring once you get over the fact that the controls are seamless, intuitive, and lend the game to amazing amounts of realism, both animation wise and with the first person camera work. (Example; when you run around a corner in a hallway your character puts their hand on the wall as they pass)

That is, it's boring until you take into account that you have some insane martial art skills, using combination of regular fighting and Parkour moves, along with the ability to disarm enemies or lay them out with a swift flying side kick or slide tackle. Now, this is all based off of the demo alone. There seems to be even more depth to all of this if you were playing the full game, which presents you with many more scenarios.

I worked my way into a building and through some duct work. I drop down into a hallway with a few government police telling me to freeze. I ran like a little girl. (That would probably sound funnier if the main character were not a girl) The problem is, I had fun running from them. If I fought them head on, I would have been shot and killed, easily, but this game actual promotes running, when necessary, and makes it fun.

Think of the scene from the latest Bourne movie, where Jason Bourne is running across rooftops in order to escape. Or think of Casino Royale, in which James Bond chases a fugitive near the beginning of the movie. This game creates that kind of adrenaline pumping action from a first person perspective. It's very exciting.

So why do I say it looks to me, like the next Oni? Oni was developed by Bungie Studios back when the Playstation 2 was the console bringing Change to America, called "The Second One", and wearing a little golden halo. Oni was a THIRD person action-adventure game (sound familiar? Hmm...) that used fluid controls for snapping, kicking, punching, and breaking your foes. While it was based more around combat than Mirror's Edge, (from what I can tell), the style remains the same. Not only did they both follow a comic book style, feature a female character with crazy moves, and over-use Japanese text on every box, crate, and magazine, they also seem to be following the same and very unique kind of action genre. If you liked Oni, this game is worth checking out. This EA/DICE partnership might have pulled a sneaky one on you, as they did me. It's not all so surprising though, with the EA/DICE success of the Battlefield series. It might just be surprising that they came up with a game as different as this little gem.

I believe Mirror's Edge is taking a leap (Hahaha?) forward in video game movement and world interaction, somewhat as games like Assassin's Creed have tried in the past, only to a far more real level. Some developers try radical gameplay ideas, and most of those flop around for awhile then quietly go back to the "No one did this before for a darn good reason" bin. This one might just stick. It's really something unique.

The concept of the game might not seem to interesting to hear about, but the subtlety of fluid motion and intuitive controls is something you have to play to really appreciate. I believe there's more to this game than meets the eye.

How to Fix Fable 2's Online Coop

I grabbed Fable 2 the other day in much anticipation. So far, it has been a great game, but I have a new personal policy about games without coop; DO NOT BUY. RPGs without coop have long since plagued my gaming experience.

Take Bethesda's Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, for example. That game was loads of fun, and my character was awesome... But in the end, who did I have to share that with? I couldn't show him off, I couldn't share the world with anyone, not even one single player. Sure, games have their limitations and I can understand why Oblivion wouldn't suddenly grant me coop when all the other games in the series were epic singleplayer adventures.

Now let's look at a game like Diablo 2. 8 players in a large world. By all means, there isn't nearly as much data going around as a large, interactive 3D world, but it's been more than 8 years since that game, and the third installment of the series will have coop as well. You'd think by now some developers could figure out how to make a decent coop experience.

So let me get the core of my complaint; Fable 2's online coop. I can understand local, 2 player coop. It makes sense to have each player share the screen, force player 2 to use a preset character, and be tethered together by an invisible leash with a ridiculously short length.

But what of Xbox LIVE Coop?

I can't bring my own character into my friend's game. I have to use some silly, preset, nameless "Henchman" who tags along. The only thing he can do is fight, in which all his money and EXP go to your character. So, in coop you get to progress your character, but you don't get to actually USE your character. I do not see what's stopping them from allowing us to bring our character into the host players world, fighting with his magic and weapons, and of course, being able to actual shop, sell, and customize things while in a friend's game. It would also be nice to see two dogs interact with each other. Was it just too much work and they wanted to focus on... The lonely singleplayer experience? There's all this speculation that it's to keep the world YOUR world. Look, if I'm worried about my friend coming in to my Good Guy world and killing all the town guards, I won't play with that person. Or better yet, why not just have the guards kill my friend? I won't get in their way. I don't see where our characters equal the same person.

We should be two seperate heros traveling in the same world.


Second ailment; we don't each have our own camera. We are forced to share one poorly designed, bipolar camera that seems to either: A) Not let you move it, or B) Not move until you move it manually. You can see where the confusion comes in. I spend more time in coop battling the camera than I do actual enemies. When on local, I understand, but on Xbox LIVE, why can't we have our own camera? When in singleplayer, the camera works beautifully!

If each person had the singleplayer camera to themselves, the coop experience would be vastly improved. This alone would make me at least somewhat enjoy playing as a nameless Henchman.


Third issue: The invisible tether. The two players can not be a certain distance apart from one another, which is fine. I understand that they're trying to keep the players together for various reasons, the prime two most likely being the fact that you don't want one player wandering off camera and they need to keep the data to a minimum. (That is to say, two players far apart are each seeing more, therefore more data has to pass across the network) The problem with the first prime reason is that this would hardly be a problem if the camera didn't fail so miserably! The second one makes sense. By all means, leash us together, but give us our own camera so when I'm running into an invisible wall I can make sense of what's going on...



Keep in mind, this is all coming from a guy who loves Coop in every single game. I generally avoid games that don't have a coop experience that is literally the Singleplayer + Friends. (Think: Halo/Gears of War Coop) Developers, stop dwarfing your Coop experience! Some of the best times had in games are the singleplayer, and some of those moments have been greatly enhanced when I can do it with a friend. Why can't I always share it with friends? And I am positive most people think the same. Games are just plain more fun when you can play it with friends. Fable 2 brings us a very dwarfed coop mode.

Lionhead was certainly on target, but they are using the wrong ammunition.

Core Gameplay: Rock, Paper, Scissors

I haven't been keeping up with Certain Affinity's work as of late, but in the past I had been keeping an eye on them due to their staff consisting of quite a few Bungie guys. Any company Max Hoberman (multiplayer designer from Halo 2) starts has got to be worth something. As I was saying, I hadn't been keeping up on the progress of their current game; Age of Booty. (Originally titled "Plunder", but apparently they and Capcom, their publisher, had trouble keeping a hold on that name)

To my surprise, I logged into Xbox LIVE to find it sitting on the XBL Marketplace. I'm not entirely sure how I missed the hype (was there any?) around this Xbox Live Arcade title before release, but I was looking forward to it. I grabbed a download immediately and liked what I saw. What did I see?

The best game of Rock, Paper, Scissors that I have played in a good amount of time. After playing the game for 3 hours straight, I've come to the conclusion that it is also a bit mind-numbing, as if I really was playing Rock, Paper, Scissors for that period of time... But Certain Affinity has certainly nailed some core gameplay. Most of you might never think of games this way. Every game you play has some combination of "THIS beats THAT" and "THAT beats THIS, but can be beat by THOSE". This is really what makes a great RTS, such as Age of Booty.

A very good example is Starcraft (or Warcraft 3, for those who aren't as familiar). THIS unit beats THAT, but THIS unit beats THAT unit. It's a massive game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, constantly playing out at your fingertips.

Certain Affinity has nailed some great elements here. Like many games, and some of the best, the game revolves around the number 3. Rock, Paper, Scissors. Three elements that make a beautiful contest of brains, strategy, and resource management. Speaking of resources, there are three resources; Gold, Lumber, and Rum. (What else would pirates use to fuel their crews?) With these resources, you acquire upgrades. Now you have three upgrades; Speed, Cannons, and Armor. Let me explain why.

Speed increases the pace at which your boat moves across the water, and in turn, gets to objectives (and resources) faster and dodge shots more easily.

Cannons increase the rate at which cannonballs launch from your ship. If you're looking to take down a foe or Port, this is the way to do it. Port towns are essentially the objective, controlling a certain number of towns yields victory for your team.

The last is armor. This increases the health of your ship. You can take more hits.

The beauty of this trio is that players may choose how to upgrade, how to conquer, and how to play. What else could you possibly want from a game? Some players will upgrade their boats evenly, ensuring they have no substantial weaknesses.

Some will go for speed and quickly run about the map. That is their strength. Weakness? Rock smashes scissors.

Others will go for cannons and quickly silence foes before they can even react. Amazing firepower make them a force to be reckoned with. Weakness? The paper wraps around the rock, suffocating it.

Now, of course I'm being figurative (Or should I just go make an FPS about the Rock Army invading Scissorville, while the Paperellions slowly engulf the world? It could be a hit.) but I believe you understand the idea. All games must have Rock, Paper, and Scissors.

Nothing must stand above the rest without weakness, this is the key to balance, variety, and a lot of fun. My congratulations to Certain Affinity on making a fantastic Arcade title. I am thoroughly impressed.

Things I don't seem to have time for... #1

- Writing a blog post
- Being intellectual
- Thought
- The amount of time required to enjoy most video games
- Completely finishing this blog po

WARNING: The Internet is a Fake!

Or that may be what people want you to believe, anyway. I'm very curious as to where this belief came about. Here are a few beliefs that I believe are dead wrong.

- Information from the internet doesn't count as real information and the internet should rarely be used (or trusted) to gather accurate information.
- People you meet on the internet are not as real as people who you talk to face-to-face.
- Spending lots of time on the internet/computer is incredibly bad.

Let's tackle the first one.

Information from the internet should not be used or trusted

Why does the belief exist? It likely exists for the most obvious reason; anyone can post things on the internet. Right here in this blog I could say "2 plus 2 actually equals 7". This also comes from the second greatest website on earth; Wikipedia. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so how do we know the information is true?

Think about it. First and foremost, the articles are monitored for accuracy. Articles, such as the article for George W. Bush, Religion, and Kittens, all controversial topics, will be locked from all but the most trusted members and corrected if biased/wrong information is contained within.

Use your head. By all means, there are a few times when an article contains an opinion, and this is where you must look out for words such as "Some believe", "I believe", and "Probably". Those are generally not caught immediately, but they are removed when they are. If something seems strange, double, even triple check with other sources.

Even a man I think to be very wise suggested that sitting on a computer browsing the internet does not actually help your reading and information-finding skills as much as going out to the library or skimming through an encyclopedia. Perhaps there is a mild truth to this, but I don't see how it's more convenient for me to do the latter, as opposed to popping open a browser and getting the answer. Maybe I'm just

All in all, here's a new concept for you; You can trust Wikipedia! Now let's move on to the next wide-spread belief.

People from the Internet are not Real People

Let's look at why does this belief is held by so many.

Paranoia! This leads back to your mother saying "Don't talk to strangers!". It's funny how in a world where people talk about how healthy it is to socialize and meet new people, it is nearly forbidden to talk to anyone on the internet other than a quick hello. If you tell them your gender, you've already stepped over the line and the FBI is on their way to xxDude208xx's house to expose him for the 40 year old man that he really is.

I say not. I've met a large majority of my Sandswept team over the internet, and I have met some amazing friends through various internet-related mediums. Even better, I've eventually ended up meeting them in person and finding out they're great people, people I would have gotten along with if I had met them elsewhere in my life.

Here's the funny part; everyone on the internet is another person like you! They probably think you're a flaming-bisexual-Nazi-pedo-drug-dealer as well. The internet is a medium for communication. Why do you answer your phone so willingly when at the same time most people cringe at the thought of someone they don't know contacting them via e-mail or IM? If they have your phone number, they can likely have your address as well. Maybe we should all be more afraid of unwanted phone calls?

Now imagine you're a teenager. What if there's a deep breathing middle-aged man on the other end of the telephone line, asking you if you're home alone? My goodness, you would likely hang up. If you're one of those people who don't really believe in prank calls, you might even call the police. The only different with the internet is that it's easier to fake who you are. If chats get uncomfortable, you'd best 'hang up' with the same sense in which you would end a phone call. Every single person I have come across and bothered to get to know past a simple "Hello, who are you?" have all turned out to be who they said they were. Clearly the media (and police, which I do understand is a measure of safety) likes to blow things out of proportion in order to say "Do not trust anyone on the internet."

By all means, don't go giving out your incredibly personal information (full name/address/phone number/school), but the next time I get an odd glance from someone when I mentioned I went to lunch with "a guy from the internet", don't act so surprised.

In fact, let's look at the taboo of internet dating. You might be shocked to realize that you know more about how a person feels and thinks by talking to them on the internet, than you do in person. You first know them on a 'talking' basis, not a 'I saw a cute girl across the hallway' basis. Perhaps you really find the incredibly compatible, not just good looking people, on the internet?

Aside from all that; for those who do fake who they are, shame on them, but most people do not go about acting like someone they're not. The phobia needs to stop, as the internet is a MASSIVE part of our modern life and, wars/economy permitting, will continue to be, increasingly so, for many decades to come.

And mark my words; I'm not faking. This is what I think.


Spending too much time on the Internet/Computer is Bad

Aside from the aspect of exercise (I do hope everyone who has a desk job routinely gets sufficient exercise), why is sitting on a computer, browsing the internet, or playing games such a bad thing in the eyes of so many?

Perhaps it's the idea that is just now changing in the past decade; You have to be active to be doing something productive.

Perhaps it's the philosophy that staring at a TV screen turns your brain to goo, and since it's a screen, obviously it's equivalent to vegging out while watching Star Trek re-runs.

Whatever it may be, this could not be farther from the truth. Firstly, I was raised on computers and the internet. Look at this trash I write. I must have learned it somewhere. School? Hardly. If I hadn't played all the games and seen all the websites busting from the seams with information (Oh hah hah, no pornography jokes here, please), I don't believe I'd be carrying the same brain I do now. Is that a bad thing?

If you talk to most people who know me, relatives and other acquaintances, I've turned out pretty darn well. I've never made any incredibly threatening or stupid life decisions to this day, I'm articulate, and I'm in the process of starting my own business with the potential of making more than most make in a year... All by the time I'm 19 years old.

I sure hope the internet and computers are to blame.

There are numerous studies that show video games and internet browsing increase children's ability to read, write, and react. This is a bit debatable, but I know that I've seen definite differences in children who's parents let them play video games, to parents who don't. Let's just say there's a difference from activity level to the ability to think both outwardly and inwardly. Perhaps I'd go so far as to say some children that aren't exposed to such stimulus are very boring in the way they think, talk, and imagine things?

I agree that all children should get exercise, walk in the woods, take hikes, ride bikes, and run around playing tag. This doesn't mean we should have a fear of computers, computer usage, or the internet. By all means, we should make these places as safe as possible, but an outright fear or 'ban' on these things does not allow people to grow with their society. As a game developer, I have a strong opinion about children playing video games. Holding back a child from playing video games or using the internet in this day and age, something I recently read a large majority of children do, is equivalent, in my eyes, to withholding a child from reading fantasy books, writing imaginary stories, and playing with other children on the playground. Yes, there are parents who do that too. Scary, right?

Another link you may want to check out; 8 myths about Video Games

As a society, I believe we need to shake off this fear of technology and begin to embrace it for what it is. How hilarious do you think it would be if people were afraid of some of the most common household items in existence today; the first telephones or first cars?

...


... Oh... They were?

Sandswept Mentioned on XNA Team Blog

Richard (Thunderfist) of Sandswept Studios was mentioned the other day on the XNA Team Blog. This achievement is notable due to him having to re-write the entire "Skinned Model Processor" for the .FBX format. In short, it was not doing what we wanted, so we showed it who was in charge...

Here's me hoping for more activity on Sandswept.net...

The Best Booth at PAX / Booth Tips

Attending PAX this year I kept my eye out on booth structure (the way props and demos were set up), population (the average number of people at the booth at any given time), and content (what the developer was showing off).

Why did I spend a good portion of my thought on this kind of thing? I probably carry a heavily burdening psychological disorder that will haunt me for years to come.

That aside, another good reason to have done that is for future experience when it comes time I need to set up a booth. I also looked around at various "10 ways to improve your booth" web pages, but I won't be directly stealing from any of them. (Turns out a lot of the tips were stuff I realized anyway!) I'm going to share what I learned with you, dearest reader. (Note the singular use of the word; I pretty much only have one reader.) I'll start by pointing out a few booths that stood out, why, and what they did right and what they could have done better, in my opinion.

[Note: I am yanking some PAX booth pictures from other locations on the web and giving credit, I hope the people don't mind!]

Bungie's Booth

You knew I was going to bring this one up first, being the ridiculous Bungie fan that I am. Bungie's booth had some nice blue lighting, a cool fuzzy rug, and what really stood out to me was the ease-of-access, along with the actual 'architecture' of it. The Bungie booth was first notable from a distance with a rotating cylinder spinning on the ceiling, printed with the words "Bungie". From that there was a curved overhang, supporting a piece of white fabric. Behind that going downwards was another, and then finally, a circular blue rug on the floor. This is the part where you go "Oh, I see what they did there." They essentially incorporated their logo into the entire architectural design of the booth.



(Images courtesty of Xbox Fanboy and Hawty McBloggy)

On top of that brilliant move and the great lighting, the actual layout of the booth was fantastic as well. It was easy to jump in and play, as there was a good amount of room to move about, as shown.


(Images courtesty of Hawty McBloggy)

On top of all this great looking booth, the staff was around and very available to talk to. If you had a question, they were there to answer it. If you just wanted to chat, they even were there to do that.

So what did they do wrong? Honest to say, I wish I had their booth. They had not only some of the most traffic, dwarfing all surrounding booths, but their booth also head a great setup and atmosphere to it. That aside, I still have one gripe. It wasn't very organized until the second and third day. The first day it was confusing where to stand in order to play. There wasn't a very organized line, and you kind of had to budge your way through a crowd in order to jump on and play. While they did really allow people to walk about inside their booth, which created a great lounge/community feeling to it all, it was pretty unorganized. Luckily, people are fairly polite about letting others get a turn...

Atmosphere: 10/10 [Very pleasant blue lighting, always something to watch, great developer-run community events]
Places to Sit: 9/10 [Comfy chairs when playing, coupled with Rooster Teeth's couch area (Bungie teamed up with Rooster Teeth, back to back booths)]
Dev Interaction: 10/10 [Always present, always eager to talk to people]
Lighting: 9/10 [Definitely well lit, but almost a bit too dark]
Eye-Catching: 9/10 [Huge spinning Bungie Logo, cool blue lights, lots of TVs]
Stuff To Do: 10/10 [Playable demo, Recon Challenge against the developers, Bungie quiz to win prizes]

Bungie Booth: 9/10
Best Booth of the Show, not just because of content, but because it was aesthetically pleasing and had a great staff, setup, and atmosphere to it. Off to the side they also featured some comfy couches that people lounged about at, one thing many booths were missing; places to sit! My feet sure weren't happy after all that walking, waiting, and standing.

The Behemoth's Booth

The Behemoth is another booth I checked out. I wanted to talk with the developers, but they were all hidden behind large walls that featured shirts they had for sale. There was a definite physical barrier blocking me from a lot of interaction with them. If the developers were more up front about talking to fans, they would've won some more points with me. That said, their booth was incredibly colorful and they had a large projector showing what was being played on the smaller screens so that spectators didn't have to crane around people to see the action. On top of that, they had some cool figures of their characters.

(Picture from The Behemoth website; as you can see, the developers stayed in the box area to the left, while everyone else played way off to the right. Were they trying to avoid their fans while playing?)


(Pictures courtesy of Xbox Fanboy; note the bright colors)

(Picture courtesy of Xbox Fanboy; see the lack of chairs? High stools would have been great for the people playing)

Atmosphere: 7/10 [Fun and colorful, but there seemed to never been a big crowd around it until the very end when they were giving away unsold merchandise]
Places to Sit: 0/10 [The people watching AND playing the game were forced to stand, nowhere to sit]
Dev Interaction: 5/10 [While the main person manning the booth and selling shirts to people seemed open to talk, the rest were in the back, seemingly ignoring the traffic at the booth. They did, however, pass my Xbox 360 faceplate around to sign.]
Lighting: 9/10 [The booth was plenty bright, and a large projector pointed above the booth at a white surface always gave the booth some life]
Eye-Catching: 7/10 [The bright colors definitely caught my eye, but not as much as they could have]
Stuff To Do: 6/10 [Playable demo, buying shirts, but other than that, there wasn't a lot of people available to talk to, fan and developer alike]

The Behemoth Booth: 7/10
One of the better booths, great colors and stood out really well. Spectators and players could see what was going on, but there was a lack of places to sit, the people watching were forced out into the main pathways between booths, not on the booth floor itself, and the developers weren't necessarily up front about mingling with fans.

One of EA's Booths

EA had about three booths at the expo. Silly them. One of their booths was a huge wall with the EA logo on it, one I avoided since it seemed like it was too hard to access... I was literally intimidated by that wall and did not dare try to venture around it. Looks like they lost one attendee with that move!

But I don't want to talk about that booth. I want to talk about their booth that featured Dead Space. Aside from this one sitting right next to Bungie, and therefore dwarfed by it, this one carried quite a few flaws. The first one was the fact that I didn't realize there was a playable demo until the second day. Their booth consisted of a Dead Space painted wall, a desk in front of it, about two developers sitting at the desk, and then one guy cosplaying as the Dead Space main character. The second flaw was the one doorway every one had to cram through in order to play, or even SEE what people were playing. I want to at least watch a game before waiting an hour in line to play it.

(Image courtesy of Xbox Fanboy)

Atmosphere: 3/10 [The wall was covered in Dead Space stuff, but other than 2 trailers playing on the outside and the cosplayer, nothing was very interesting. A quick glance inside showed the interior was mostly white, not at all lit to match the style of the game]
Places to Sit: 5/10 [The people playing got chairs to sit in, but their booth pretty much pushed people into lines, or straight into the path of others passing between booths]
Dev Interaction: 8/10 [Developers were right there out front, ready to answer any questions... If only I had questions.]
Lighting: 1/10 [The outside and inside of the booth was not very brightly lit, and didn't really match any sort of theme]
Eye-Catching: 7/10 [The Dead Space sign, wallpaper, and cosplayer did catch my attention, but not much more than many of the other booths]
Stuff To Do: 3/10 [Playable demo after waiting in a massive line, or you could have talked to the developers sitting outside, but other than that, it was a pretty boring booth I skipped over fairly quickly]

This particular EA Booth: 5/10
While the cosplayer was cool, and I would have loved to play the game, this booth didn't offer a lot. I must admit though, I didn't expect a lot of developer-fan interaction from EA at this point anyway. That's not really something they're very big on.

I could go on about more and more booths, but this is getting pretty long. My tips on how to make your booth great?

Top 10 Ways to Make Your Booth Attractive

1) Shut up! [Sound]
A major turn off from a booth was how much noise it was producing. You might think loud booths attract more attention, but if you're not the type that listens to fully blasted death metal, you probably wouldn't like a lot of the booths I saw. Keep your noise to a tolerable level. If you're showing a trailer, yes, have it turned up loud enough to hear, but I don't want to hear it 10 booths away. By all means though, feel free to let me see it.

2) Be Bright! [Lighting]
Dark booths blend in with all the other dark booths. Shine some bright lights on your back-wall surfaces, shine a projector on your booth, make stuff bright! As long as you're not blinding your audience, light is not a bad thing. On top of that, try some colored light. Bungie had a very calm blue light, which made it seem all the cooler. Many of the booths with very plain, white lighting were boring. The only time a booth should have just white lights is if they're demonstrating something on stage, or they're trying to illuminate some brightly colored wallpaper. (Castle Crashers, for example, could have used some very bright white lights shining on the walls.)

3) Make a Presence! [Stand out]
Not just lighting, but also wallpaper. Put something above your booth to show there is something there. If someone looks over the crowd of booths and people, they should be able to see your company or game logo hanging from the ceiling. Let people know you exist!

4) Have something for us to do! [Demo, Merchandise, etc.]
All the booths with a simple trailer playing were more or less boring. If you're going to show up at an event like this, have some T-shirts, have some merchandise, have something to sell, have something for them to play, whatever it may be, have something to make your booth worth standing in, not just passing by with a quick glance.

5) Heal our feet! [Make your booth comfy!]
Give attendees somewhere to sit, or a soft rug to stand on. Not only does this make them feel more welcome, this also allows them to just hang out at your booth. This is also a great time to start some conversation with them. If your booth will have a line for a playable demo, give the people in line somewhere to sit, and when playing, a chair or stool to sit on. Don't force people to stand. Simple chairs are not that expensive and your booth attendees and staff will not stop thanking you.

6) Eliminate Barriers [Be there, be accessible]
Physical and psychological barriers come in all shapes and sizes, be they a giant wall, or oddly colored carpet. Try to make them feel welcome to your booth, and ensure that your staff are there to talk to the fans, not just sit by and make sure no one steals anything.

7) Re-arrange the Furniture! [Let people feel welcome!]
Another type of physical barrier is narrowing people into a single hole, or putting stuff in their way. Keep all furniture to the back and sides, or if you do have abundant room in the middle (Bungie's booth is a good example of this), ensure there is plenty of room to pass through or stand behind the people playing for spectators. Don't let your attendees trip over cords, bean bag chairs, or consoles.

8) Wear a uniform! [Dress Code]
A small badge is very hard to see, especially from any sort of distance. If you're an exhibitor, make sure people know you are, and who you represent. Make sure all the staff manning the booth are wearing identical attire, or at least one piece of identical attire. (Staff-only T-shirts with your company logo, for example)

9) Be happy! [Developer-interaction]
Put your best, happiest people in the booth. If it turns out a lowly concept artist is one of your most outgoing staff members, put him in charge of the booth! Ensure the staff at the booth at all times are the happiest, most outgoing staff, with the ability to answer questions and strike up conversations with any one.

10) Stay in touch! [Bloggers, fans, media, etc.]
Get in touch and stay in touch with bloggers, fans, and media. If you meet a really great fan at the show, remember who he is, maybe even mail him a cool prize just for simply being an outstanding fan. If you meet a blogger, stay in touch. They'll be the ones spreading the word about your new title. Do everything you can do get noticed by the gaming media (Aside from the obvious and creepy things that may or may not involve clothing)...

There are my tips. Will any one use them? I don't know. I'm sure this has been said many times before, yet I saw many terrible booths at PAX '08.

All I ask if that you let me have the best booth.

Shut Up and Pretend to Read!

I was sitting in an orthodontist office the other day. While there were countless magazines laying about, be they centered around sports, health, fashion, or cars, I decided to watch all the people around me instead. They all seemed so happy to be sitting there in their chairs, flipping through magazines while their children crawled all over them, ran around with the other kids, and somehow found some great amusement in the fabric of the chairs.

The kids were exciting, sure, but this is what caught my attention. Flipping through magazines! Who actually reads the magazines? Maybe if you really are interested in a topic you'll be reading the magazine, but how many people just sit there and flip through the magazines at 1 PPS (pages per second), passing the time while they wait? I know a lot of those people were, I can even say I've done it myself. But that's the whole silliness, the fabrication of it all.

Why do we do this? Are we afraid that if we don't look busy or 'adult' to other people, the people will think there's something wrong with us? How dare we not flip through magazines like every one else! Certainly the adult thing to do is to pop open Time magazine and read the latest scandal in politics. Apparently it's also 'adult' to be bored of your mind and pretend there's nothing wrong with what you're doing. What is that, you ask? Starving yourself of entertainment and fun.

No one in that waiting room was incredibly happy to be there, not because they had to get their teeth pulled at, drilled, or yanked for half an hour, but because the setting was just boring. Or was it? The children seemed to be having a riot.

So why are all the adults (and older teens) so bored by all this stuff they do? I'm not really just talking about waiting rooms here, I'm talking about school, life in general, people are pretty bored. Children get up and just play. Adults, and 'mature' teenagers are no longer allowed to do those silly things, yet they continue to complain about being bored.

This is not at all to say small children don't complain about boredom, it just seems that they can go from being incredibly bored, to pretending they're in the army, flying a spaceship, or finding something fun about poking furniture with a stick. Hey, even fighting with other kids is a way to keep entertained. It's almost as if adults force themselves to stay bored, even when opportunities to be far more entertained present themselves.

No, I'm not suggesting the men in the lobby have an all out brawl...

So why do adults no longer act like children? What in our society is forcing you to sit in that chair and read some stupid magazine they really don't care about? Why don't adults complain about being bored, when, in reality, a lot of them are just putting their efforts to the daily grind of work and only occasionally really getting out and enjoying life? Maybe on weekends they get out and do stuff, but why not in the waiting room of a boring office? I understand if someone does not have kids, the whole "do stuff with your kids" message here doesn't mean much, but it's something to think about.

If you're an adult, maybe even a teenager reading this, when was the last time you played tag? Got up and ran around with kids? When was the last time you rolled down a grass hill?

Can't remember?

Maybe you should put down the magazine and show your kids how to build legos. I know it's what I would do.

What The Behemoth Did Right (And Wrong)

I've realized some of my blog posts are a bit wordy. Do I ramble? Good. I have more to ramble about, this time it centers around The Behemoth's recent success with Castle Crashers.

(Note: I know full well I've not released a finished game yet, and The Behemoth is quite a few steps ahead of me on just about everything... But since I think I know every thing, I'll give my input on their new title.)

With Castle Crashers breaking all Xbox Live Arcade (XBLA) sales records (accumulating $1.1 million+ and 78,000+ units sold in 3 days [source]), I'd like to touch on what I personally think The Behemoth (developers of Castle Crashers) did right. I'd also like to touch on what I think they did wrong, or could have done better. Some constructive criticism, if you will.

Let's get this first bit out of the way; I think Castle Crashers is a great game. I love it. It has plenty of content, fairly good re-playability, great sense of humor, and it's just plain fun. Now, on to specifics, both why the game is amazing (and why it is so successful) and also why it isn't quite as popular or fun as it could have been, at least in my eyes and from my many hours I've already wasted towards it.

What The Behemoth Did Right #1: They Already Had a Community

I'm talking about Newgrounds.com. The Behemoth was co-founded by Tom Fulp, creator of the immensely popular flash games/movies website, Newgrounds. Anything Tom Fulp is doing, the big group of Newgrounds fans know about it.

"He's making a game, you say? Well, as avid Newgrounds visitors, we should all support him, since we know it will be as awesome as this website!"

The Behemoth had a good start out of the gate, both with a highly skilled artist, creative minds, and the Newgrounds community at their back.

What The Behemoth Did Right #2: They Existed

Well, duh. Of course they existed, you say. That's not quite what I'm referring to. I'm referring to the fact that they showed up. They made a presence, whether or not they had a lot of new content to show. They came to every PAX, every Comic-Con, and every other gaming convention that I would deem "important". They had a booth, they talked to people, people got to know the name, recognize the faces, and recognize the art style especially. Alien Hominid, Behemoth's first title, did not have nearly the hype or community Castle Crashers has been and still is generating. Few people knew The Behemoth already, but many who were not even fans of Alien Hominid were still seeing, learning about, and interacting with The Behemoth as they were developing Castle Crashers.

What The Behemoth Did Right #3: They Value Community/Developer Interaction

This somewhat falls under #2, but it's different enough that I'll talk about it.

Gamers love talking and interacting with developers of their favorite games. Some developers don't really interact on a very personal level, but The Behemoth definitely knows how to keep people happy. Community is asking for something? You'd best get it out there in any way you can. The Behemoth swiftly answered some questions (and concerns, which I'll talk about later on here) immediately after Castle Crasher's release. They were prompt, and on a more friendly level than many developers usually are, making the community members feel more like The Behemoth is talking to them as a small group, not as a crowd. (Admittedly, that might be because they're still so small, their fans really are still a small group, but they are well on their way to becoming a crowd!)

On top of that, some of The Behemoth staff will frequently visit the community forums and join in on the regular discussion. This is key to having customers who will keep coming back for more. When The Behemoth's next game releases, you can bet almost every one who bought Castle Crashers will buy it.

What The Behemoth Did Right #4: Creativity is Key

Ok, so maybe this isn't so much something they did, but more something they have. They are clearly a very creative bunch of guys. Dan Paladin is a clever artist, and while I don't know the specific roles of many, the rest of the team is surely great at coming up with hilarious ideas, great events, and really timing the game so that it never gets dull. Well, almost never.

What The Behemoth Did Right #5: Good Controls

How many times have you picked up a game wondering how on Earth the developers figured [this] control setup would be fun, easy, and make sense to the player? I've played quite a few games that, even though it might be an FPS or sidescroller, the controls are completely different than the usual setup for that genre. Are they attempting to be groundbreaking? Innovative? Just plain different? Whatever the reason, I think it's appalling that a game can be worked on for over 1 year (or even more) and come out with controls that are not smooth to the average player.

The Behemoth, on the other hand, they got it right. They did it. A is jump! X is fast attack! Y is hard attack! B is ranged attack! While combo attacks can be somewhat complex, just picking up the game and running through the first level is not hard or confusing! (As far as controls go, that is.)

What The Behemoth Did Right #6: They showed it can be done!

As part of a very small developer, they showed it's still possible. In a world of Halo, Gears of War, and other blockbuster hits, The Behemoth has shown that small games can still thrive, build communities, and succeed. I owe them many thanks for being incredible role models for me.



Now let's move on to the scary part; what they did wrong!



What The Behemoth/Microsft Did Wrong(ish) #1: Bad Release

Castle Crashers was highly anticipated, and by all means, it sold like it was going out of style. I can't really say it was a terrible release, so I want to get my few almost-minuscule points out of the way. I realize full well that Microsoft sets a release date for XBLA titles, but the timing was fairly rough. Right during PAX, a lot of the hype and attention was focused on other things. I know myself, for one, didn't really get to enjoy the game quite as much since I was actually AT PAX. My perception of the release was obviously different than the majority of people who didn't go to PAX. So, first issue with the release was the timing; right near the start of PAX.

Now why was this also good? Many people came to PAX, saw The Behemoth, played Castle Crashers, and then likely went home and bought it. Was it really a wrong move, then? Maybe. Now that's all just timing, I want to talk about things that are really hurtful towards the game. These all center around what state the game released in.

It is broken. As of writing this, Castle Crashers has some major flaws that are really hurting some experiences myself and others are having with the game. The Behemoth has already (within 10 days of release!) promised a Title Update/Patch to fix these flaws.

The first one is connectivity issues. I'm fairly surprised that they didn't catch such harmful networking issues in testing, but it's there all the same. Castle Crashers is primarily a coop game. It's build entirely around 4 player coop, it's even in the title of the game! "Castle Crashers: A 4-Player Adventure!" So what are these connectivity issues? I can't play on Xbox Live with anyone! You can blame my Moderate NAT settings, but even so, I can play other games just fine over Xbox Live. This is really hurting my experience with the game, as I'm forced to play locally with any one who's around, or entirely alone. I can't play with my friend over in some other state, so my first impressions of this game as a great Multiplayer title are a bit ... hurt, so to speak. On the other hand, I've had great fun playing Locally as well. The sooner this is fixed, the sooner their game can really take off as a great Xbox Live title.

The second issue is player save data. Again, more promises to fix this have been made, showing The Behemoth's attentiveness and speedy response to their community. Playing through a game, and then finding out your game save data has all (or partly) been deleted is a sad, sad feeling. This holds especially true for RPGs and games where you progress your character, not just your character's progress in the game. Another issue that will indeed turn players away, sometimes permanently. Having all your save data loss can really make you never want to play a game again.

I had a similar experience with the game Overlord. Great game, pretty fun, but not one I would play twice. About half way through, I was no longer able to progress in the game due to a glitch. An item I had (and needed) disappeared, and it was impossible for me to go back and get it again. Right then and there I turned off the game and never played it again since. Good game, horrendous glitch.

The sooner Castle Crashers is patched, it will become one of the greater games I have played.

What The Behemoth Did Wrong #2: Repetition and Monotony

While I compliment The Behemoth for incorporating combos and progression, the gameplay in Castle Crashers can fall under the category of repetitive button mashing. Yes, we can mix it up with X, X, Y, instead of just hitting X over and over again, we're still mashing our thumb into the controller over and over. Every game does that, right? It's all about smashing the controller buttons in one form or another, right? Not quite. Castle Crashers falls victim to forcing the player into hitting the buttons far too often. If there is a horde of enemies, you generally are left hitting X and/or Y over and over and over and over... Until they are all dead. Very little is the combat broken up into strafing, moving and dodging. The real redeeming quality is that jumping changes the way you attack, and the ability to block gives the combat some actual skill-factor. I find the game, if you're not thinking about it much or aren't being careful, it can be very boring. Once you really get into it and start blocking, shooting your bow, and jumping around a bit more, then the combat becomes a bit deeper. (Did I over and overdo it there?)

(Image Courtesy of Gamer2.0)

In short; while the game does have deeper combat for those who pursue it, it still leaves the casual or lesser skilled players a bit bored. Games, especially arcade titles, should yield a bit more fun for the players who aren't as skilled, or aren't as attentive or adept in their controls. I can see a lot of casual players getting bored easily, as the game doesn't naturally yield in depth combat.

Again, just my opinion as a casual but skilled player. I could be off by a mile in the opinion of others! (Ok, on second thought, maybe the game is not in depth enough? I can't seem to pin point the problem, but it's there. Something about the combat is dull and repetitive, at times.)

Now I want to touch on the other side of monotonous gameplay, not related to the player's movements. The enemies and bosses come readily to mind. The enemies are generally fairly boring after awhile. The only real changes are the look of the enemies and the spells they use. Other than that, they rarely block and they really cast magic in different ways. The biggest challenge in enemies as you progress is the fact that their health and damage are increased. The AI and movements don't really change an awful lot between biped enemies. As for other enemies you come across, they do break up the pace enough to keep it interesting. These include blobs that attach to your head (you must wiggle the joystick to remove them), fish that arch over your head in the water, and any other enemies that move or act differently than just walking about and swinging a sword at you. There aren't many, but again, just enough to keep the game fun.

The bosses are usually different, but the concept is always the same. Each boss is a damage sponge. While they all move differently, and a few of them even require you to attack something else to open the boss to stronger attacks for a short time, the way of defeating them remains identical among every single one; attack it in any way you see fit until it dies. While there are some minor exceptions, this holds true.

What The Behemoth Did Wrong #3: General Confusion

I get confused playing this game. Three things really bother me. Three things I believe could be fixed somewhat easily, without hurting the gameplay as is.

(Image Courtesy of Gamer 2.0)

"I can't find my guy!" - I get this happening a lot, especially when playing as a character that also appears in the game as an enemy. It would be fantastic if the game were inclined to temporarily put the player's name over the head of each character when there were a certain number of enemies on screen. They already do this when the level starts, so the feature of displaying names is clearly in game already. I don't imagine it would be a hard addition, but it would save me lots of annoying times trying to figure out what just happened in that giant mess of characters and spell effects.



(Image courtesy of IGN)

"Why can't I hit this guy?" - I understand the inherent problems with sidescrollers, especially ones that have depth to them, as Castle Crashers does. (By depth, I mean the players can not only move left to right, but also up and down, as if they were standing on a 3D plane) While shadows help, (without shadows, I would be really upset) I still often have trouble hitting enemies that I see myself standing next to, or jumping up at. It seems at times if you're almost on top of an enemy, but slightly above or below it, you will miss entirely. A bit of an annoyance, but this is not new to Castle Crashers. I was just hoping they would fix this problem with perhaps a slightly wider 'hit' radius when the player swings their sword. The up and down movement also seems to often make spells and ranged attacks useless, as they will go right by enemies without leaving a scratch.

"What do I have to do?" - Interestingly enough, this one might seem so small and pointless, I don't expect a lot of you to agree with me, but it really bothered me on multiple occasions the other night. On the screen, you get certain pop ups telling you to wiggle your joystick, or press the Y button over a dead friend. At times, these don't pop up, or are covered by spells, etc. Shouldn't these "HUD" elements be on top of everything else? Small, but somewhat irritating when I can't find my friend, or figure out where the enemy just bashed me into the ground.


(Image courtesy of IGN)

To summarize; the game has some confusing visual elements, and the range/radius/splash of attacks and spells could/should be increased a bit to alleviate some "2 and a half D" woes.

That's all, folks. That is all I have to say about wrongness in and around Castle Crashers. But... Just one more thing.

Can they keep doing this? Are they prepared for the future?

Dan Paladin is a fabulous artist and his art style he has done for Alien Hominid and Castle Crashers leaves me holding him in some of the highest regard. But can they keep making cartoony 2D games forever? I understand that there's always more 2D cartoon-type games to create, there will always be a platform similar to Xbox Live Arcade, and I know that they are making money off of their last two titles... I'm just wondering if it will hold up forever. If the Behemoth wants to really make a living on games, I'm not sure if they can keep that up with simple Arcade-esque titles. (Castle Crashers took them 2+ years, and while it has made a great sum of money, is it enough to pay for more 2+ year long projects?)

Will Dan Paladin's art style hold up and continue to allow them to make games with just a single artist?

I believe, from my entirely naive and silly viewpoint that the Behemoth will have to expand their team and start going slightly larger and higher quality (read: 3D, or at least full retail) on their games to continue doing what they want to do.

I don't mean to say Castle Crashers is low quality, by any means, they have certainly set a bar with XBLA titles. By higher quality, I really mean to say... Larger games, more content. A larger game for the same time-span of development. Perhaps The Behemoth's next title should be something.. Surprisingly large and complex?

Oh, what am I saying? Don't listen to me, I don't really know anything. I'm going to play some Castle Crashers while I wait for The Behemoth's next title...

Proffesional Athletes: Overpayed and Hyperbolic

Warning: If you're a fan of watching sports on TV, I may insult you to a small degree. Or a large one. I guess you'll have to read and find out.

In light of the recent 2008 Bejing Summer Olympics, I'd like to touch on my view of the obsession of sports our society has. Not just the obsession, but the actual worship of the athletes, and why you should stop sitting there on your couch screaming like an idiot at your TV and do something slightly more productive.

Let's get one thing out of the way; I'm a video game developer. By all means, go ahead and tell me I'm a hypocrite, but not until you read the rest of this and allow me to continue to talk about the difference between interactively playing a game in front of your TV and simply watching one.

All uses of the word "athlete" also applies for "Video Game Athletes" as well.

What is a sport?

This one should be pretty obvious. It's where people get together and participate in a game, whatever that may be, either competing against each other, or working together as a team. Either way, it generally involves exercise of some sort and it probably involves injury, if you're not careful. My good friend Dictonary.com defines it as "an athletic activity requiring skill or physical prowess and often of a competitive nature, as racing, baseball, tennis, golf, bowling, wrestling, boxing, hunting, fishing, etc."

Since the ancient arenas of Rome, we have enjoyed watching people knock eachother's brains out. In modern America, we pay those same people hundreds of millions of dollars per person every year to do it. Now I'm going to tell every single professional athlete that they are overpayed and overhyped. This money is not going to the right places.

The Delusion of Monday Night Football

First I must make one thing very clear. I do not sit in front of the TV (or computer) idolizing, watching, or even keeping rough tabs on professional gamers. There are some people who do. I don't understand them, so perhaps this is really why I don't understand the excitement many people get from watching sports. I would much rather spend my time playing a game than watching someone else play it, no matter how good they are. Why don't you go toss a football around outside? It's much more invigorating than throwing your money at guys with big muscles and decent coordination.

So why, I must ask, do so many avid football fans sit there on their couches screaming and yelling about how great (or terrible) some team is doing? It's not their team. They don't own it. They don't benefit from it. Even if you made bets with your friends over who was going to win (very dumb thing to do over something so wildly random and unpredictable), you probably don't have much riding on that team.

Why do I say it's random and unpredictable? Oh, you're telling me some teams are better than others? Sorry, but if your team even makes it to the NFL, you are filled with the top 1% of football players. The outcome of most professional NFL games is not based on who can throw, tackle, or catch better. It's about how slippery the grass was, how much sweat might have dripped in your eyes at the wrong time, or how windy it might have been. Luck is a huge determining factor in many things, talent and hard work is only about half of it.

Did you know Einstein released his oh-so-famous paper on E=MC2 mere weeks before another guy was about to? Can you name the other guy? You might call that hard work. Einstein was working harder, therefore he got it faster. Maybe. You could just as easily assume the second guy heavily proof-read his paper and added some more to it, therefore it cost him another week or two, yet if he released his final draft at the same time as Einstein, Einstein's could have been dwarfed entirely. Hard work might actually be the cause of delayed papers, costing someone vast amounts of fame. Who says a little sweat in the eyes doesn't as well?

Then there comes to whole division of people. "This Team Vs. This Team". They either win or they don't. I suppose if you're arguing over who's uniform is more colorful, by all means, but the top teams are all so similar, and all blatantly obvious as the best. They have some better players, and they have some lesser ones, but all in all, the teams who win... Win! So why does a new team seem to win every year? Oh, that's right, we're overpaying a bunch of guys who run about tossing a ball around, hoping they'll get lucky and win.

Could I compete with them? Not at all. Their entire life is devoted to the sport, just as none of them could compete with me in my field. So before you say "You're jealous that you can't do that and get payed that much", know that you are absolutely right. I am jealous that a bunch of guys who prance around on a stage, pretending there's an actual element of skill involved, get payed untold amounts of money, and then demand more of it.

Next time you watch your sports, turn off the 'exciting' commentator and just watch what's going on. Green field, colorful uniforms, little brown ball. It gets old, fast. If you care about who wins what (even if it doesn't affect you in any way), I suppose that's just where your interest lies. I'd also just like to touch on the subject of "Fantasy Football", emphasizing the word fantasy. Meanwhile, I'll be doing something that I'm actually participating in.

Enjoy your Monday Night Football.

Watching TV =/= Playing Video Games

While I'm not saying watching TV is bad, as there are some great movies and TV shows out there, I would like to suggest that watching sports on TV is a complete and utter waste of time.

"But Mister, video games are a waste of time!"

Look, we're all passing our time in this life with one waste of a time after another. No doubt about it, video games are a waste of your time when you could be wasting it doing other things. As a form of entertainment, they are completely worth your time.

Now why are Video Games worth your entertainment time, when watching Sports on TV, in my complete opinion, is not?

Participation!

When you're playing a video game, it is not mouth feeding you like a TV show. You must participate. You must act. You must think. You must strategize. You must outsmart your opponents. Your brain is far more active playing a video game than being mouth-fed input from a TV show, sports on TV, to be specific. The same goes for actually playing a game of football or basketball or soccer. When simply watching, you don't do any of the thinking, you don't do any of the planning, and you sure aren't participating in any of the physical aspects, all but the part where you jump up and down like an idiot when some guy you've never met runs across a striped line.

Just so you don't call me out on lack of exercise... To give you some numbers here, 20 minutes of jogging equates to one hour of video game playing, as far as calorie-burn is concerned. WIRED magazine elaborated on this;

* 1.5 hours of weight training (842 calories) OR 1 hour of Dance Dance Revolution (900 calories)
* 30 minutes of aerobics (242 calories) OR 20 minutes of Wii Boxing (250 calories)
* 20 minutes of jogging (198 calories) OR 1 hour of PS3/XBox on the couch (204 calories)
* 15 minutes of sex (33 calories) OR 7 minutes of Wii Tennis (46 calories)

By all means, be a rabid football fan. By all means, follow your little team to your heats content, but before calling people out on enjoying themselves with other activities (such as gaming), make sure you've got some ground to stand on. I loved this episode of Man In the Box, as it outlined this exact thing.

Returning back to the beginning, the 2008 Bejing Summer Olympics are on TV. Why, for some reason, do I not care? Am I a soulless individual with no patriotism to my country, Michael "Triangle-Man" Phelps, and young, perky girls in tight clothing?

Probably. What are you going to do about it? I know what I'm going to do, I'm going to play my video games and stop contributing my money towards some guy who likes to buy outrageously large and expensive homes and automobiles.

Where should the money go? I really can't say. Starving countries? Other lower payed professions? You name it. Anywhere but sports organizations. Maybe they should pay game developers more... Hmmm...

Oh, I mean, uh...

I know this is a stretch, but what if, just maybe, I'll instead grab some buddies and go play something together, where we all enjoy and participate, instead of watching someone else do it for us. When people say "Live the American dream", they don't mean pay someone else to live it for you. Get off your couches and show people (and yourself) how passionate you really are about sports, not how passionate you're pretending to be.

Return from PAX '08

I am officially exhausted from this past weekend. So, instead of actually writing anything useful, I'm just going to give you my impressions of what I saw, along with a few pictures.

First and foremost; Halo 3. The Bungie booth was absolutely swarming with people, many of whom I actually recognized, or at least knew from the internet. Lots of discussion (and I brought a blank 360 faceplate, so also signing) took place amongst myself and many of the Bungie staffers. They sure know how to please a crowd. Bungie has created a spectacular community atmosphere, and their booth absolutely beamed with it. On top of a new map they allowed us to sit down and play, they also seemed to have dropped a few hints at a possible expansion pack, so to speak. Bungie definitely stole the floor from just about every one else, and they weren't even showing a new game! I happily await to see what this monster brings forth.

Speaking of monsters, The Behemoth was at the show with Castle Crashers. I didn't actually play it at the booth, due to the fact that myself and my group beat it in our hotel room before coming to the show. I did, however, get to have a nice chat with some of the Behemoth staff, and I was surprised to learn they're much in the same circumstance as myself with Sandswept Studios; that is to say, they are small, spread out, and more or less bootstrapping the development. Congratulations to them for smashing every and all XBLA sales with roughly 1 million dollars in a 3 day period. [source: vgcartz]

Starcraft 2 certainly caught my eye, and I am eagerly waiting for that one to be released. I didn't actually get to play it since I'm not much of a "Let's stand in line for an hour" type of guy, but I watched a few games and I am thoroughly impressed. It's looking to be one of my favorite games of all time, right next to the original Starcraft.

Left4Dead had a massive line, but I the game looks fun enough. Killing Zombies is a great past-time in gaming. I'll definitely be sure to check this one out.

I didn't really see any other games that intrigued me, but all the booths looked busy enough.

Now I'd like to talk about booth layout for a minute. The Bungie booth was open and inviting. People could crowd around it and jump in the middle to play. The Blizzard booth was similar. Players could walk about freely, not feeling like they had to wait in some strangely shaped line, or walk around any tough obstacles to get a chance to sit down and play, or even get a simple look at what was going on.



On the other hand, many developers tried to jam people into tight lines, or even funnel them through a doorway to get a chance to even SEE what was going on. Very bad move, at least in my opinion. I was entirely uninterested in anything that required me to stand in a line to even watch someone play. It made me sad.

And before I finish this; Seattle is a beautiful place with some awesome weather. Rain and cloudy skies are my favorite.

Hopefully I'll be at PAX '09 as an exhibitor.

PAX 08 or Bust!

Heading to Seattle, WA this coming Thursday for Penny Arcade Expo (PAX) '08 with some of the other Sandswept folks. 12 hour drive, both ways, in a nice crowded sedan. It's going to be sweet. (Or is the word I'm looking for "sweat"?)

I plan to spend a good amount of my time at PAX around the Bungie and Behemoth booths. Hopefully NEXT year we'll be attending as exhibitors and not rabid fans... I will be taking lots and lots of pictures. Perhaps I'll see some other people I know, along with giving the Bungie guys a run for their money at their own game, as myself and Brighton (Sandswept Studios Creative Director) often do.

Should be a blast!


Also; Play Castle Crashers this week! It comes out Wednesday, August 27th. It's going to rock!

I will post of my travels upon return.

Comic #1: Polar Fishing

To depart from my usual writings, and on the same line of thought as my rant about Discovery and History channel becoming "Let's look at boring Blue-Collar jobs!" reality shows, I bring you a stupid comic. Enjoy the stupid comic. (Click stupid comic to view stupid comic in full stupidity)



All apologies to the people now scarred by my horrible 5-minute artwork and misuse of Photoshop.

Story Writing in Games: 15 Minute Plot Segments

While working non-stop to plan storyline for our current title, it has been tough to keep the story interesting as a whole (the overall story), while at the same time, keep it interesting throughout the game (the smaller plot events). That is to say, we were having difficulty imagining players being continually interested in the story if the entire goal of the game is to get to the end, and nothing really happens between the beginning and end, except for lots of combat and perhaps a few puzzles and basic navigation of the levels.

Yes, when it comes down to it the gameplay is the core component that keeps people playing, but in my eyes, I don't want people to just play the game because it's fun, I want them to play because it's interesting. I want them to get a bit concerned about the story events, and hopefully, laugh when the dialog demands it. So, let me tell you of the system we came up with to organize our story. Perhaps it will help you plan out your stories in the future.

We had the beginning of the game planned out. We had the ending, and we had the climax. Unfortunately, I couldn't really think of specific events that chained those three main events together. We didn't have plot holes, we had plot craters. We're talking Highlander style. If you've waded through the movie Highlander, you will appreciate that analogy. Our Creative Director, Brighton, suggested we divide it up into 15 minute plot segments. He struck oil on that one. Allow me to explain how that small idea (and now a completely obvious to me why-didn't-I-think-of-it concept) saved our story, at least in the planning phases - To be determined by players whether or not it's actually a good story.

Create 15 Minute Plot Segments

The purposes of dividing the game into 15 minute segments is fairly simple. The first one being the obvious; it drives the game. You go here, save someone, go here, save someone else, go here, discover something, go here, encounter a big bad boss, go here, encounter these people, go here, fight these guys, go here... And so on.

The second reason I'd like to point out is that it makes the game incredibly accessible by every one, from the hardcore "I played it for 6 hours straight" gamers to the casual "I had 20 minutes to spare" gamers. Both players will feel like they've accomplished something. If you receive a mini-plot quest, if you want to call them that, you can complete it in about 15 minutes. For gamers who play the game for hours on end, they'll have accomplished lots, and really feel like this game is just moving right along, event after event, so much fun! For someone just picking the game up to play for a short time, they will have accomplished something and have likely received their next goals. The next time they pick up the game, they'll already be eager to find out what's next. I have played so many games (Battlefield: Bad Company's single player mode comes to mind) where I have played for 20 minutes, even an hour, and felt as if I've made no substantial progress in the story. At this point; the game becomes a grind and you really only continue playing it (IF you continue playing it) either A) Hoping it will magically improve or B) To suck easy but monotonous achievements through a straw. I'm not really a fan of the latter, as I'm not really into Achievement milkshakes, so generally at this point I give up and play something else. That is bad. A developer never wants their game to be put down to due lack of interest (when it's new, especially) and/or pure boredom. While I can't say that EA/Dice (developers of Bad Company) didn't try; they have some fun gameplay, but perhaps it's really the poor AI and repetitive singleplayer objectives that really do it. They generally have a new cutscene every 30 minutes. Worth a play? Maybe once, but I didn't really enjoy it as much as I could have. So again; Bad. Keep your player interested throughout.

The third reason is that it's just plain easier to manage from a developmental point of view. If I want to find a specific section of the game, bam! It's right there, nicely sectioned out in it's own 15 minute block. This helps you design your levels more appropriately and really get some idea of what you're trying to convey. In a minute I will give you an example of how our storyline documents look.

How do I create these? What is the process?

Here's how we did it.

Excuse me Sir, do you have directions to...?

First, you decide where the player must go. If he has to travel to a new land, you need to decide how long it will take him to cross the current one. One level? Two? Ten? That's the simple part. Generally the best way to do this is to think up the coolest scenarios you want to put the player through, or perhaps even just some cool scenery you really want them to see. Extreme example? You asked for it:

"It would be so much fun to have the player drive a convertible through an alligator infested canyon desert swamp while being attacked by ninjas from monkey powered helicopters!"

Perhaps too extreme. If you need the player to travel a great distance, let's put them on a river. Now you have a sequence where the player is stuck on a boat, and must fend off the enemy attacks. Halo 2 had multiple instances of this on the level "Delta Halo", where the player is required to ride 'tram cars' across a huge distance while fending off flying enemies, and enemies from opposite-moving tram cars. Does the overall story demand a tram ride? Nope. Is it mega-fun? Yes! Gears of War did this, in some ways, where you're stuck on a train and must fend off the enemy. Epic Games likely said "We have to have a scene where the scenery is rushing by and you move up the train fighting from section to section."

We have cool events. What's next?

Do you ever wonder why we're here?

Why is the player riding a sweet train with epic scenery? Oh, that's right. The story put him there. This is where your 15 minute plot segments really come into play. You have great scenarios, now to figure out how and why the player gets there. What chain of events leads up to this? While that is for you to decide, this method makes it so much easier to plan, manage, and generally speaking, come up with ideas.

Let's try a generic example of a 15 minute plot segment.

You are on your way to save the day. Someone is in peril! You must save them! You fight off the baddies and save them. You're a hero. How long did that take? 15 minutes.

In 15 minutes, the player has been giving a minor goal, fought for it, and solved it. They feel like they've just done something. Now, I'm not suggesting you rush the player. Some minor events can take much longer as well, but during those longer events, make sure you are overlapping at least one, if not many, 15 minute plot events.

Since I love examples, here is a mini-plot segment that is longer than 15 minutes.

The player walks through a town that has just been pillaged by pirates. The pirate took the women, as pirates do, and the player must save them. This is an overall goal, let's say it will take the player 30 minutes to accomplish. That means we will require two even smaller plots segments inside this one. One of the villagers, crying, tells the protagonist that the pirates have stolen all the women and taken them to their secret cove.

Let's go for the obvious; How does the player find the pirates secret cove? That will easily take 15 minutes to figure out. The player has to talk to some people in the town, perhaps do some 'talk to him' NPC searching. (You know, the old "I think so-and-so may know" trick)

Once you've figured that out, you need to acquire a boat. Perhaps this will take 10 minutes, and once you've set sail to the cove, another 5 to save the women. In 15 minutes, the player has acquired a really sweet boat. In another 15, the player has saved the day and is now a hero in that town. The player feels accomplished. I wish I was the player. I would be feeling so great right now.

This is a fairly shallow example, but I believe you can grasp the general idea. The next thing you must not forget.

Is Santa coming this year, Mommy?

Rewards! You must not forget to reward the player. As I see it (and I'm sure they've been categorized further and/or called by different names), there are two kinds of rewards:
- Emotional Rewards
- Material Rewards

The first, emotional rewards, involve anything that just makes the player feel good. Things that make the player laugh, cry, panic, or finally let out that breath they've been holding during that incredibly difficult boss fight. That "Finally!" or that "Woot!" or that "I'm not crying, I just haven't blinked for awhile and my eyes dried out" every gamer gets when they encounter something they are just so proud of, excited, or touched by. You've all come across these, these are the main reasons you play games. While you may be doing almost nothing but sitting on a couch, you feel like you've just been crowned King of Arcadia. These rewards come from simply completing things. Emotional rewards should be given at every 15 minute segment. If these aren't given, the player is not enjoying themselves since the game is not stirring any emotions, whether they be "I'm having tons of fun" or "No way, he did not just stab Aeris."

Then there's the material rewards. Just defeated a really hard boss? I hope he drops a ton of gold. Just saved the damsel in distress? You better level up. Reached a major point in the game? Plate mail, watch out, because the player is going to wear you. If you want my personal opinion, material rewards should be given out roughly every 30 minutes, usually after defeating a boss. If you're really good, you will give the player a boss, big or small, every 30 minutes.

Moving on.

This is how we lay out our storyline document(s). (Sorry, this is not an actual excerpt from our game, I made this entirely up on the spot. No sneak peeks today!)

Goal: Save the child, return him to his home.

(In the previous level, the protagonist is told of a lost child in the next valley over. He ventures there to save this child from certain death.)
/Level#1: Level Title/
[The Protagonist] travels down into the valley the old man spoke of. The air, eerily calm, does not bode welcome through the low-lying fog. (note: this describes the scene) He moves onward, encountering strange beasts that jump from the mist. He must rely on his reflexes to survive their constant attacks. Up ahead, he hears a cry for help. Figuring it must be the child, [The Protangonist] charges forward to find himself in front of the Evil Overlord, holding the child by the arm. He had been using the child as bait! [The Protagonist] demands that he let the child go. "Your quarrel is not with him! It is with me!" "Very well..." The Evil Overlord thrusts the child to the ground. [The Protagonist] rushes forward, axe drawn, and engages his foe. [Boss Fight: Evil Overlord] ...

Does he save the child? Does the Evil Overlord escape? Is the child hurt? Must [The Protagonist] hurry the child back to the village witch doctor in order to heal some mortal wounds he might have acquired?

This is the power of 15 minute segments. The player does something, something happens, something is accomplished, and something new is presented. On and on and on, throughout the story.

If you can dream it, with the help of this technique, you can make it a reality.

So, You Want to Be a Game Developer?

[Authors note: I wrote this quite some time ago, so I thought I'd revise it and give it another try. I like to think I've learned a lot since then. Again, I do not claim to be an expert at all. This is all my opinion and my insight from my perspective, learning, and observation. If you want to criticize me for inexperience, you are more than welcome. This is also purely my opinion; you may disagree. Feel free to express your opinion on the matter. - GK]

“I want to be a game designer.”

I hear this all the time. Let's just lay it out flat; truth is, the term 'game designer' is vague. Ridiculously vague, and it sounds silly to anyone who knows better. Since it seems a lot of people don't actually know better, let's look over what you really mean. Or.. Probably mean, anyway. This should help out a lot of people interested in game development. Or maybe you have no idea what you mean, or what game development even consists of? Chances are, many people have no idea how games are created. Let me try to at least point some of you in the right direction.

What is a Game Designer?

This is a very loose term. I never use it, except for the purpose of putting it into layman's terms for those not even remotely aware of how games are created (generally when speaking to a non-gamer). Even then, I try to use the word “Developer”, since it's more appropriate and covers a broader range, which most people are mean when they say “Designer”.

Designing a game, to me, generally means you are one (possibly in a group with a few others) who conceives the game from top to bottom. That is to say, how it plays, the overall feel of the game, the goals, and the mechanics in which the game runs. I'd call this guy a “Project Lead” or a “Producer”, someone who manages the overall quality and management of the game throughout development. A “Lead Designer” is also a term used often, but even that yields very specific tasks.

To create a game, you must have multiple talents. This is where the term “Developer” comes in, since it covers every aspect of game development, not just the conception of a game idea, which, chances are, every one has. The trick is to have the team, resources, and brains to pull it off. You need people who can program, people who can do artistic work, people who can write stories, people who can get your game to store shelves or other outlets, and someone to manage all these programmers, artists, writers, etc. The list goes on, and in each category, more specific roles can be given out. Now, I'm not saying one man could not do it all, but generally game development requires working with a team, and each team member helps design their section of the game, with one or more members leading every one with the overall vision of the game.

To my experience, when most people say; “I want to be a game designer.”, they're really saying “I want to help develop games.” Again, this is very broad, but they're heading the right direction. Now you must ask yourself; what part of games do you want to help develop?

Idea Men

“I have an idea for a game.”

This is the classic one to hear from the general population. Simply put, everyone has an idea, big or small. Chances are, you thought it up based off of some other games you've seen, or maybe a cool movie you saw. It's a very brief idea, maybe the only thing you can say about it is “It's a game where you find [some cool aliens], go to [some place], and have [cool weapons.]” (More or less simplistic, but not much more detailed than that.) I call these guys “Idea Men”. They have a small, vague idea, and they believe that their idea is great, if only someone would create it. They go about on various game studio forums telling the studio how they would make boatloads off of their idea. Everyone is an idea man, and most just realize their idea isn't going anywhere, or they don't care that much to pursue it. Others believe their idea is right up there next to the greatest games of all. Now, if they really want their idea to become a reality, they need to evolve their idea a bit more and get to a position where that's possible. Why would a studio spend 1-2 years of development and expenses to create an idea that is nowhere near as complex or in-depth as the one they're already working on? It just doesn't happen, as the risk is too high. Once the idea becomes more in depth, now you're getting somewhere. Myself, I have ideas of games I would love to see created, and I've worked my way, through toil and strife, into a position where this is more possible. “Idea Man” is not a position, so let's continue on to the real stuff. I might have ideas, but I have more jobs than just thinking about stuff. By all reckoning, that would be a very easy job...

Artists

Artists come in all shapes and sizes. 3D Modeling, creating polygons? 3D Animation, bringing characters to life with movement? Concept Art, helping the modelers and designers capture their ideas? Graphical Art, such as textures? These are the guys who make your game shine. Everything that you see on top, is art. I love my artists. My days would not be nearly as fun if I couldn't blame horrible in-game blemishes on someone. As I said, I love to kick my artists.

Are you interested in drawing pictures on paper, maybe some cool vehicle, weapon, or character you've come up with? You may just make a good concept artist. Concept artists can create many things, but generally specialize in one area of the game. They create art that the modelers or other artists use to create the more detailed, in-game version of whatever it is that was conceived. Concept artists, with some other talent, can also be environment/level designers.

How about 3D work? Do you like taking pictures of things (say, from concept artists) and creating them in 3D? Or perhaps bringing them to life with movement? You might be a good modeler or animator.

Perhaps you spend countless hours editing pictures of kittens to say funny, grammatically incorrect statements, or perhaps you enjoy sewing heads of presidents onto monkey bodies with Photoshop? I would hardly call that talent, but maybe you've managed to do other things as well. Maybe you've managed to create something more, such as amazing wallpapers or visuals, and you declare yourself to have “1337 photoshop skillz”. There's a chance you might be a very good graphical artist, someone who creates anything from company logos to in-game art. Textures on characters, objects, and environments. Dirt, grass, wood, metal, you name it!

The next group are the nerds. The very smart, holy-crap-how-did-you-do-that group.

Software Engineers (Programmers)

For many who don't understand, a programmers job is not as simple as it seems. They merely bring things to life, make things work, and create the gears that turn underneath all of the fancy art. Not so hard, is it?

Hah! I'm sure I could direct you to a few programmers who will punch you in the mouth for such comments.

The average programmer is fairly intelligent. Good programmers have to be. Most future programmers can find their talent if they just try it some. There are many people, like myself, who couldn't program if their lives depended on it. But all of you, listen to this next sentence: That didn't stop me from trying. People like myself just don't have the natural ability to do it. We don't like math, we don't like bringing things to life in the same sense, and we sure try to avoid thinking too hard. Programming can be learned, but for some, it comes much more quickly, and their aptitude for it is amazingly high. Programmers are in shorter supply than other professions. China and India are graduating, per person, more engineers than the US. That says something about us being behind. While obviously they aren't generally going into game development, the point still stands. Engineers are hard to find. They are few and far between. Their skills are precious.

Without a programmer, a game will never crawl, much less walk. If you're the kind of person who gets in trouble at school for opening files you're not supposed, or fixing the teacher's computer before the school technician shows up, you may have the talents of a good programmer. Or maybe you're just a nerd. If you're not sure, or maybe you've been interested in programming, as I will re-iterate before this article is finished; try it. That is the only way you can say it's not for you, or alternatively, is.

Writers

Do you like writing stories? Are you a big fan ficiton or short story writer? Did you always love English class throughout school? (I know I did!) You might just be a writer. These guys aren't always looked upon as a major contributor, though anyone who has played a game with a good story, you can bet there was a good writer behind it. A good writer can really make or break a game, in a lot of ways most people wouldn't imagine. Maybe they're not the best gameplay designers, but boy, can they cook up a good story! These are the guys that game developers want to keep their eyes out for. They've got all the names, places, action, romance (ooh), suspense, and fantastic world stirring around in their head. Get them to write it down. Without teaming up with someone who really knows how to make games, these guys will remain as is, with pages and pages of storyline. No gameplay to speak of, just an epic story that puts Stephen King to shame. These guys have talent, but it's not for “Game Design”, it's for writing. I highly encourage anyone who is a “Writer” to find a job in the game industry for writing, and look out for project leads and other game developers who are in need of someone to write cinematics, storyline, anything of the sort. These are men like Joe Staten (writer for Bungie Studios and author of Halo novel “Contact Harvest”, one of the best books I have ever read), who have carved worlds thick with lore and history, things the fans can really sink their teeth into. Games are rapidly becoming interactive movies/interactive books, in a sense, and these are the guys that help it along the way. Some people just can't write a great story, so good writers can be invaluable. If you're a lone writer interested in game development, find someone, some studio that will bring your writing to life. It just may be the most amazing job of your life.

Anything else?

There's a few more advanced positions in game development, say, as a Producer. They're more in charge of the global aspect of things, must be good with people, must be a good leader, and must have many of the skills you'd think to find from a manager. Generally speaking, this requires either A) Starting up your own studio as I've done, or B) Many years of working your way up the ranks. If you're the guy for this kind of job, you've probably already thought about it and I don't need to tell you twice. If you're this kind of person, you'll already have figured out the options and how to get to your goals. That's the sign of leadership, initiative, and that “Go get 'em!” attitude managers need to have. Also, with all companies, game studios do occasionally need other positions that aren't related to the game development itself, such as a CFO, managing budget and such. That's a completely different set of cards.

So what's your point?

If you have no idea what you're interested, try everything. Try to write. Try to draw. Try to model. Try to program. I believe those who really want to create games will find their niche. For those who want to be project leads, producers, or get their idea created as a game, I can only say that it requires connections, rising through the ranks, or founding your own studio, all of which are very difficult. As I just mentioned; if you're the kind of person for that type of job, you should already be well on your way to it, as you're intelligent, you're a hard worker and you never give up.

Let me just say it here, loud and clear. If you want to make games, start now. Do not wait for high school classes to teach you, do not wait for college. Familiarize yourself with the tools now. Spend your spare time learning, practicing, and creating. If you enjoy programming, you must start programming now. If you want to do art, you'd best get out your pen and paper. Nothing impresses a game developer (read: a potential employer) more than actual work. Credentials on your resume help your credibility, but actual work dwarfs it in comparison. I would highly suggest you start building a portfolio as early as possible.

For those of you who are already working a full time career, you likely have a degree, (or maybe you still want one?) and you're not sure what to do. If you like games, you're creative, and you want to really enjoy your job, see if you might have any of the skills it might take. I want to stress that no one go through life working a job they don't enjoy. Make sure you're putting food on the table, but if you're not enjoying your work, find what you really like. For you gamers out there, you might really find something magical about creating games. Though, it's not for every one. For me, game development is the only type of work I've done in my life that I have truly and honestly enjoy with a deep passion. I would not trade it for a crummy job with a massive salary.

If you're not sure what to do, start out with modding tools for games and go from there. Don't be intimidated by the industry. Start small, grow big.

See you on the battlefield.