Archive for November, 2007

Episodic Content

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007

I have mixed feelings about episodic video games. So far, I think the only company that successfully exploited the episodic content idea is Valve with it’s Half Life 2 series. I think that there were other attempts from other companies, but most of them sailed past below my radar. The only one I can actually think off from the top of my head is the Sam & Max series. Unfortunately I never got into that one, because I was such a huge fan of the original Sam & Max game. The idea of playing a “talkie” version with 3d graphics scared me – I just didn’t want to tarnish my memories of pure Sam & Max awesomeness with some newfangled sequel series. Anyone played these? Are they worth checking out?

But I digress. I think most of other episodic ventures have failed miserably, and this is why I can’t remember them. Can you? Valve has shown us that it can work, but you do need a strong brand to get it started. It can be worth while for a game publisher to invest in something like this, but is it a good idea from the point of view of a customer? Let’s look at some pros and cons. I like episodic content because:

  1. I get a new game faster – instead of waiting few years between sequels, I only need to wait few months
  2. The episodic games are delivered in bite sized chunks that I can play from begging to end in few evenings. This is actually not a flaw – for someone with no attention span, being able to finish a game without getting sick of it, is an accomplishment. ;)
  3. The game is more compact – since the overall length of the game is shorter, plot expositions will likely be packed more densely. For example, Half Life 2 had stretches of protracted combat that took longer to finish than both Episode One and Two put together. The episodes on the other hand offer you short bursts of intense combat, punctuated by puzzles and plot exposition elements. Of course this might just be Valve refining their packing storytelling skill in the new installments.
  4. Minimum requirements creep is not so intense. Since all episodes will be using the same engine, you should be able to run them on the same computer. This is usually not true for sequels, which usually get shiny new graphics and ramp up minimum hardware requirements considerably.

What are the reasons to hate episodic content?

  1. Glorified expansion packs. While this is not true for HL2 series, some publishers may use this strategy to simply sell you expansion packs with few bonus maps, and a lame, tacked on story arc.
  2. Episodic content promotes lame, open ended writing. Just like TV series writers, game publishers may not want to resolve any of the in game story arcs because that would mean the end of the series. What you get in the end is a meandering story that is going nowhere. Of course this is not always the case. For example the Season 1 of Hereos is a self contained story with a satisfying resolution. Despite that, the show did not end, and instead delivered a successful second season. Also, this hardly applies to Valve since it seems that Episode Three will be the last one of the series, and it’s unlikely that we will get any answers from that one either.
  3. Pricing sucks – you get a 5-6 hour long game with only some minor tweaks to the engine, but you still have to pay $30-40 bucks for it. Still, this depends. For example, Valve did discount Episode One down to $9 after releasing Episode Two.
  4. Finally, you never know if the game will be successful until it hits the store shelves. At this point, Valve can pretty much do no wrong. Any Half Life related title is almost guaranteed colossal sales. But if you are setting out to produce a game series, you don’t know if there will ever be episode two, if episode one is not a huge success. This means that fans of the game may get left stranded after playing just the first chapter of the planned story. If this was a full game release, gamers would at least get the whole story instead of some half-assed game without an ending.

All in all, I loved both Episode One and Two and I think that I wouldn’t mind playing few more episodes before HL3. And while I’m not really sure the episodic paradigm will ever work for the gaming industry as a whole, I think Valve found the perfect formula. What do you think? Can you think of any episodic game series that were successful?

Would you like to see more episodes of Half Life, or is 3 more than enough?

Common Misconception: Technology Moving Too Fast

Tuesday, November 27th, 2007

I noticed that a lot of people has this odd idea in their heads that the technology moves so fast we can barely keep up. The other day I was talking to someone who told me that he would never go into computer science because “In the time it takes you to get your degree, everything you have learned is already obsolete.” Wow, really? I mean, yes – the laptop you buy as a freshman, may be becoming obsolete when you graduate (but only if you use it for gaming), but the knowledge?

There seems to be this crazy notion floating around that the technology in 10-20 years, will be so crazy awesome that all our current knowledge will be useless against the brand new super science powering all the flying cars and bionic computers. Cause, you know – slow-tards don’t know about quantum computing, so the next best thing is like bio-engineering and shit. Have you ever experienced this? Cause it happens every time I try to talk about future advancements in technology. There is always someone saying – hey, the technology is moving so fast, that you never know what we will be using 20 years from now.

Unless we do reach singularity before that 20 year mark, I can tell you exactly what we are going to be using. Same old shit, only on faster hardware. For example, we will still be sorting shit using Quicksort because that’s pretty much the best thing we got. And guess what, Quicksort has been developped in 1960!

This may shock some of my non-technologically inclined readers (although I can’t imagine why would they keep reading me, since I keep offending them every chance I get) but a 47 year old algorithm is still the fastest and most efficient, way to sort shit.

Dear boys and girls, the valid and proven concepts and ideas never get old. The tools and languages we use to express these concepts with, may become obsolete and fade out of use, but the concepts themselves are pretty much constant. They are the base on which we build all the new software. Computer science is just like any other science – progress is achieved by building on top of existing body of knowledge. Not by rejecting everything and building shit from scratch like some people may think.

So 20 years from now, we will still be using the same algorithms and the same design patterns, in object oriented programing languages, and connecting to relational databases. And you know what, C, C++ will still be dominant fucking languages. Java still be everywhere, and I will still be browsing the web using Firefox under Ubuntu. And Microsoft will still be a pain in the ass monopolist. The only difference is that we will all probably be running on 64 bit architecture, with more than 4GB of RAM.

Artificial Amunition Scarcity in FPS Games

Monday, November 26th, 2007

Here is another pet peeve of mine: artificially created ammunition scarcity in FPS games. It is a gameplay element a bit similar to the insurmountable waist height fence syndrome with respect to prevalence, annoyance factor and overall goal. What am I talking about?

Recall the last FPS game you have played. I’m going to use Half Life 2: Episode Two as an example here because that happens to be the game that I just finished. Try to remember what happens when you find a large weapons and ammo cache. In most cases you will load up on ammo clips until you can’t carry any more. For example, you can only carry 300 rounds of ammo for your machine gun. Then you find a shotgun, and you can only carry 60 rounds of ammo for it. Then you find a rocket launcher and you can only carry 3 rockets. Why is that? How come the amount of ammunition I can carry is limited by some arbitrary number, and not by say weight? Why can’t I drop the machine gun and it’s ammo to carry more rockets?

In real life, if I knew I was going to face bunch of Striders (or tanks, or airships or whatever your game uses) I would empty out my backpack, and stuff it with rockets. I would also stuff rockets down my pants, then take some string and make rocket belts. But most games only let you take 3 or 4. Half Life uses this ammo scarcity to tell you where to fight striders and airships. Since you can’t hoard rockets, you must face them near the infinite ammo crates, conveniently located in the middle of carefully designed area with scarce, easily destructible cover. This way, every 2 or 3 shots, you have to pause, and then duck and run through open ground to reload. It makes for more intense, and difficult battles, but it does hurt immersion a little bit.

This is even worse in one of the final scenes of Episode two. You need to face wave after wave of walkers, and your only weapons is some sort of sticky bomb that needs to be tossed using the gravity gun. You can only carry a single bomb at a time, and your car has a rack, that takes exactly… One bomb, despite the fact, you could easily fit at least 3 of them there. Oh, did I mention the fact that if the bomb carried in front of you via the gravity gun gets as much nicked by enemy fire, it is rendered useless? So while the combat area is so vast that you really need the car to get around, you are really forced to find around the few bomb disposal units. I fought the whole encounter dangerously close to the base I was supposed to defend because that was the only place on the map with 3 dispensers in walking distance, and enough friendly firepower to at least provide some diversion to the enemy as I was screwing around with the bombs.

Almost every single game does this to some degree. In fact, this has become one of the staple features of the genre and no one seems to be noticing it anymore. How about this though: let’s introduce weight based ammunition management instead. It doesn’t necessarily need to be more complicated. You simply don’t tell the player about weight of each ammo type – you do that internally. All the player needs to know is that if he drops 8 machine gun ammo clips he can take one extra rocket or something like that. This also nicely limits the amount of weapons you can be toting around. Halo’s 2 weapon limit was as ridiculous as the ammo scarcity, but a weight/size based system would really solve the issue. If you want to carry the rocket launcher, you will probably need to drop one of the machine guns. And if the player drops the wrong weapon at the wrong time, you can always just conveniently place the right weapon right where it is needed. In fact most games actually do just that right now anyway so I don’t see a problem here.

What do you think?