Briefly noted links
(Visited 14159 times) Game talk
Dec 202005
I told myself I wouldn’t reblog, but… here’s some links that have recently caught my eye that I meant to write whole posts about but haven’t found the time.
- Lost Garden: Convergence: A great word to hate is another good post from Dan Cook. In it he discusses why the convergence of digital media and games onto consoles in the living room isn’t something to cheer about.
- The myth of MMOFPS over at the Cesspit is a discussion that starts out being about FPS but dirfts into the broader issue of skill and persistent worlds. I’ve said stuff about this in the Small Worlds presentation and elsewhere from time to time, but never really articulated why I see purely competitive gaming as not lining up real well with persistence. Suffice it to say that any persistent setting wherein the winner keeps racking up higher and higher scores is going to reveal a power law distribution of wins, which means that the average player will be below average, which means that they’ll usually have bad experiences, which means they’ll quit, which means that there’s a reason why the treadmill exists even though it sucks. More on that if I ever do write “Do Levels Suck? Part Two… the Fabled Post That Never Materialized.”
- Children Learn by Monkey See, Monkey Do. Chimps Don’t. – New York Times tells us that humans seem hardwired to imitate, in a manner beyond that of other primates. I was going to riff on this to discuss treadmills and also maybe lack of innovation in the game industry, but you can guess what I would have said, so never mind.
- OMG! Catass! | The Cesspit. plus this post of Darniaq’s and this IGDA piece were enough to get Lum going, and I thought about joining the fray, but heck with it.
- Lastly, Nerfbat argues that “sandbox games cannot exist.” Grumpy Gnome is, of course, wrong about this, but part of the issue is the way sandboxes are currently defined — it doesn’t mean “freedom to do anything” and it doesn’t mean “lack of content.” It just means “greater freedom to choose between activities.”
11 Responses to “Briefly noted links”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Blogroll Joel on Software Raph Koster Sunny Walker Thoughts for Now Sex, Lies and Advertising
Last link correction “sandbox games cannot exist“.
I didn’t intend to argue that sandboxes can’t exist. If I remember correctly, I said “it’s a world that probably can’t exist” after describing what a sandbox was. I will say that a “pure” sandbox MMOG probably can’t exist, at least by the definition I tend to use (basically, in a world in which players have far too much control than is sane).
I also mentioned that you can create at list partial sandboxes, although they’ll likely never be sandboxes in the purest form. There’s a sandbox aspect to a number of games already, and I’d really like to see them developed further.
I guess the question is, “how far?” How much do you define for players before letting them loose? How free do you let them roam? Do you let them create tangible assets for the world? I suppose our definitions of “sandbox” are different (mine is a seemingly stricter black & white definition).
For what it’s worth, I love freedom in MMOGs. Players hate being restricted, at least artificially. I have a post I’ve been mulling over for a while about artificial restrictions and how much they annoy me, but I’m not quite sure when I’ll get it finished up with the holidays here and me headed out of town.
Anyway, I do like sandboxes. I think they have amazing potential if we do one right, but I’m trying to find out what the right way to make one is. And to take a quick stab at you (pls dont keel me thx), I don’t think a sandbox should use a license, because it is too easy to destroy someone’s preconceptions with that sort of game.
I suspect it depends enormously on the nature of the license.
That said, my definition of a sandbox does not preclude having fairly elaborate toys in that sandbox — like say, a toy that is WoW-sized.
By your definition, a sandbox could exist, and may even be able to exist in a licensed world. I guess my worry about sandboxes with licensed games comes from the ability of players to affect the integrity of the license, but if it’s a sandbox on a broad scale, it could work.
Ok minor soapbox issue here.
Using the word sandbox, in any general way outside of its literal meaning, does not make it easier to discuss game worlds, design (of anything) or provide any sort of common ground for discussion. One person’s ‘sandbox’ could be another person’s prison (Hey whats this we only get sand to work with!!! WTFOMG!@!).
I would like to take this moment to encourage everyone to stop and think about what they are referring to when they say sandbox, and try to find another less point of view influenced term to use. One word catagorizations have a place but in this case it just totally clouds the issue.
(I don’t know why, but the comment shows badly in the preview, although I double-checked the html and it seems correct)
Suffice it to say that any persistent setting wherein the winner keeps racking up higher and higher scores is going to reveal a power law distribution of wins, which means that the average player will be below average, which means that they’ll usually have bad experiences, which means they’ll quit, which means that there’s a reason why the treadmill exists even though it sucks.
I’m dumb. I read the it the first time and I thought it was a brilliant summary going straight to the point while instead I often walk around endlessly only trying to get it. Then I read it a second time and I forgot the sense.
Why there’s a “reason why the treadmill exists” in that context?
I touched a few points about the reasons why levels do not suck here. But I suspect that what you say here is that they can be needed in order to give the player the artificial illusion of being good and improving at playing the game.
Also, rereading what I read after you link it I just noticed how I completely go off-track in the middle, losing focus on what actually mattered. I was planning to write a follow up after the discussion on Q23. A few basic points I isolated were:
“Exclusive choices”:
You cannot have detailed character customization if you want large battles.
You cannot have a satisfying and deep character progression if you want “skill” to matter.
You cannot have persistent, huge environments if you want the situation to remain accessible for everyone.
My thesis is that the online FPS have already available all the persistence and complexity they need. So I don’t see how the “MMO” part could contribute with something worthwhile.
You’re going to drag me into writing something long after all!!! Some of this may repeat in “do levels suck part two”…
The treadmill exists because it allows players to substitute patience and time investment for skill. It essentially serves the same role as a handicap in chess or golf: it levels the playing field so that people who lack the skill can still get progression.
…but I don’t have any time. So those kids that have it get to beat me even if I could play better. =( Why is having time better than having skill in … a game? =)
Ironically, because more people have time than have skill.
We as gamers tend to forget how bonecrushingly HARD games are to those who lack skill in them. Especially competitive games. People are lazy, they don’t want hard entertainment, generally.
Arguably, the most successful games require little of either. 🙂
Heh. True enough.
Luckily I have the luxury that my personal target audience as a developer is not “more”. I will keep aiming for “fun” over “successful” 😉