Blobs in Games: review

From Red Blob Games's Blog

Titan Quest #

I've been playing an old RPG^* called Titan Quest. Two word summary: Diablo Clone. Diablo 2 was lots of fun, and so is Titan Quest.

One thing that struck me about the game design is that it keeps the game simple at the very beginning. You start out as a generic character, wearing generic clothing. The only thing you have to decide at the beginning is your name and gender. Very simple. So simple in fact I thought I was missing something when I created my character. World of Warcraft, which also delays a lot of complexity (talents, spells, mounts, etc.) makes you choose race, class, and appearance at the beginning of the game. Titan Quest is … spartan (pun intended).

As with many games, as you fight, you gain equipment. Not unusual. But what is unusual is that all the equipment drops are what the monster was wearing at the time! The caveat is that equipment is often damaged during the fight, and what drops can be of lower quality than what it was wearing originally (or it could be so badly damaged it's not useful). I'm not sure if the damage level depends on the battle. I'm also not sure if this game mechanic adds much. The equipment also can be enhanced with “runes” (like Diablo 2), except the mechanics are different, and IMO more fun. You have two weapon sets, which allows you to play both ranged and melee, or have an alternate weapon for monsters that can resist your primary.

What's I really liked was the class/talent system. At every level, you gain skill points, which can be used either for advancing general knowledge of an area (a class), or for unlocking a new skill, or for improving a skill. Many skills can only be learned if you have a lot of knowledge in that area. My initial instinct was to get a few skills and improve them a lot, so they'd be supremely powerful skills. However, the strategy guides I've read online suggest that you're better off learning the general knowledge first, and then learning the higher level skills. So this gave me an interesting tradeoff: if I learn the general knowledge (which also gives me better stats), it's delaying my gaining skills. I might have a harder time now, but the payoff is that I'll get the more powerful skills sooner. (Side note: with the expansion pack you can pay to unlearn skills.) I've decided on a middle path: I picked a small number of skills to focus on, and spend the rest getting general knowledge. As with many RPGs, as you add skills, you get more options of play style, not only statically (in the choice of skills) but dynamically (in choosing how to use combinations).

In addition to the general knowledge vs. skill choice, Titan Quest also delays the introduction of classes by tying it to the skill system. You don't choose a class until level 2, when you have skill points, because you have to use those skill points to choose an area of study. At level 8, after you've been playing the game for a while, you get to choose a second area of study. So now we have over 30 class+class combinations, but you don't have to pick until you've gotten a feel for the game.

I've been quite happy not having to make so many choices at the very beginning of the game. When I first start playing, I don't have enough information to make that choice. That means I'm often going to make a bad choice. Delaying a choice not only reduces complexity as I'm learning the game, but it allows me to make better choices. I think Guild Wars and Dungeon Siege II do something similar with their class system. Titan Quest and World of Warcraft also allow you to unlearn skills, which means you can explore more styles of play without starting over from scratch. When penalties for making a wrong choice are reduced or eliminated, people take more risks. They explore more. They try more things, and have more fun.

Aside from the interesting class system, I think the game is mostly like Diablo 2, down to potions and portals and “acts” and economy. This is a good thing. The graphics are incredible, looking like hand-drawn 2D art, except it's actually 3D. I've been having lots of fun. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll play through a second time. Unlike Diablo, the maps are hand-drawn and not random. This makes it more enjoyable the first time and less enjoyable on subsequent plays. Also, it requires the CD in the drive, and having to swap CDs with whatever game I get next is a huge barrier. Still, I'm going to get ~50 hours of gameplay for $20, and I think that's a pretty good deal.

^*Update: [2008-07-31] Some people pointed out that there's not much “role playing” in this “role playing game”, and delaying choices may be less appropriate if it's a true role playing game.

Labels: review

Silverfall Demo #

I've been playing the demo of Silverfall (see the preview on IGN). Like Dungeon Siege and Titan Quest, Silverfall reminds me of Diablo 2, which I loved. It's a role-playing game in which your character goes on quests, fights monsters, collects treasures, upgrade items, learn new skills, etc. The graphics are great, or would be, if my computer was fast enough. Some of the more interesting things about it:

• Graphics. The characters are surrounded by a black outline. See this screenshot (and others) on IGN. It reminds me of cartoons, where the outlines help separate the important characters from the backgrounds. It's more than this though. Silverfall's graphics look hand drawn, at every angle and zoom. I can't figure out how they did this.
• Physics. It can take advantage of a physics accelerator card. I didn't see much that would benefit from physics though, and it's sort of annoying to have to install a physics library.
• UI. The UI is really smooth compared to Dungeon Siege, although not quite as nice as Diablo 2 for reasons I'll list below. The use of the mouse and hotkeys is nice.
• Factions. The nice twist on this type of game is Nature vs. Technology. When you complete or reject certain quests, you gain favor with either nature or technology (these are diametrically opposed). When your favor with either faction increases, you gain access to better items and skills. Also, in the story your faction becomes stronger, which changes the storyline and the appearance and buildings in the city. A third path is to favor neither side, accepting quests on behalf of both. This gives you more experience from quests, but you no longer have access to the special items from each faction.
• Quests. A consequence of the nature vs. technology factions is that some quests will make you worse off. In most RPGs, the more quests you do, the better. But here, the quests can hurt your standing with one of the factions, and you can lose access to items, skills, and further quests. So you need to think about which quests you accept.
• Skill Tree. Like Guild Wars and unlike Diablo, you can change your skills, at a cost. I think this increases the enjoyment of the game the first time through, because you can try out several approaches without starting over, but it may decrease enjoyment the next time through the game. It's a good tradeoff though, because it helps a large number of casual players at the expense of a small number of dedicated players.
• Classes. There are races but no character classes. Instead, you can choose your skills to build your own style of character. There are skills for melee, ranged weapons, light magic, dark magic, faction (nature or technology), and your race (human, goblins, trolls, elves). This yields a large set of styles of play. I tried one which combined melee and dark magic, and a different style that combined light magic and nature skills.

It seems silly, but I think the black outlines and the hand-drawn look of the characters and other objects are a sign of something important. Before 3d accelerator cards, graphics were drawn by programmers and artists, and games had lots of different visual styles. With 3d cards, a certain style supported by the card is cheap, fast, and easy. All other styles are more expensive, slower, and harder to program. This has led to a far less diverse set of visual styles. Okami is a rare exception. (Side note: I'm not sure how the Silverfall developers implemented their outlines. At first I thought it'd be a single pass over the buffer to look for differences in Z values, but when you zoom in you can see the outlines are at the vector level, not the pixel level, so it's possibly a shader that looks for normals perpendicular to the screen. And I have no clue how they made everything look hand-drawn.) In old-style art, it was easy to identify objects. You could tell what was clickable, what was a button, where a person was, etc. Artists weren't looking for realism. They wanted to express concepts and emotions and ideas in game art. Newer games tend to be cluttered. Just look at how much harder it is to see all the objects in The Sims 2 vs. The Sims 1. Newer games are more realistic, but less artistic. The harder it is to see what's on the screen, the more effort the player makes in seeing things, and the less effort the player can make in deciding things. Although there are games like Quake and Halo where much of the challenge really is in seeing things, I don't think RPG and strategy games fall into that category. I like games where the challenge isn't in seeing the objects on the screen, but in deciding what to do. I hope the shaders in graphics cards enable game developers to explore more visual styles.

Since I'm on the subject of displaying information for players, there are several things that Silverfall seemed to get wrong:

• Camera rotation. I spent way too much time rotating the camera in Silverfall (and Dungeon Siege). I spent no time doing this in Diablo. Does rotating the camera add to the game? No, I don't think it does. Yes, it's “cool” and people seem to expect it, but it didn't make the game better. In fact, it made it worse.
• Zoom. You can zoom in to see your character close up. The character looks really nice when zoomed in. But this mode is useless when actually playing the game. For playing, you want to be zoomed out as much as possible. (In fact I'd like to zoom out even farther than Silverfall allows.) This means that all the effort to make the zoomed-in camera work (for example, distant objects, level-of-detail terrain, and expensive high-resolution texture art) is a waste. Unfortunately you need some of this to put on the box so people will buy your game. But it's a big waste.
• Loading zones. When you travel from one zone to another, the game stops and loads the next zone. That's a minor annoyance. The big problem is that all your spells are cancelled. Techniques for avoiding loading screens are well-known. I don't mind if there's loading when you enter a tunnel or cave or dungeon. It's when you see arbitrary boundaries unrelated to the game that it becomes annoying.
• Terrain. The demo takes place in a swampy region. The terrain is very bumpy. It looks like it was randomly generated (maybe Perlin noise?). The small problem is that the random-looking terrain adds nothing to the gameplay. It just gets in the way. The big problem is that the slopes that are walkable and the slopes that are not at not distinguished in any way, except by clicking and finding that your character doesn't move. At the very least the cursor should change color or shape to indicate that some area isn't accessible.
• Map. This is actually a complaint about lots of games. If I were Indiana Jones and I had to go to 3 places to collect artifacts, I'm going to mark those 3 places on my map. Far too many games have a notion of an “active” quest, and only show that one place on the map. No! Make the map work like I would actually use it. Show me all the important places I need to keep track of. Let me add markers. Let me add notes. Let me draw lines. Don't make me keep a second map on paper because your map is so lame.
• Quest Listing. There are some bugs in the Silverfall quest list, which I'm sure they'll fix before release. For example, it doesn't remember where you were the last time you brought up the list. A bigger problem though is that the quests do not keep track of who assigned the quest (and where). I found myself often re-reading quest descriptions, trying to guess who would have assigned such a quest. Some of them are on the map and some are not. Some of them trigger the rewards automatically and some do not. It's a mess. Just as with maps, the quest listing should match what I would do on paper. I would keep track of who gave the quest, where I need to go, and what the potential rewards are (especially related to faction). I would allow adding notes, assigning priorities, and sorting the list. For example, there was one quest I received that I was not ready to do. I'd like to move it to the end or otherwise mark it as “later” so that it doesn't clutter up the list of active quests I want to work on. And if the map shows all quests, it should also use different markers for active and postponed quests.
• Trees. I've saved my biggest complaint for last. The graphics in Silverfall are great. I admit that. The problem is that the swampy area has lots of trees. In the default zoomed-out view, the canopy of trees blocks your view. So the game very helpfully hides the leaves. In addition, tree trunks block your view. So the game very helpfully hides the trees near your character. But tree trunks still block your attacks. So you now have a completely mysterious and maddening situation in which invisible objects block your attacks. Your attacks are blocked and you can't see why. This is truly bad. Just get rid of all the trees. They don't add anything to the game. Alternatively, since it's unlikely the developers will do that at this point, just let me walk and attack through the trees.

I really liked the demo of Silverfall. It's really promising and it could be lots of fun, except there are some little (easily fixed) things that really detract from the experience. Even with the flaws, the demo was more fun than most other games I've tried. I hope the developers read this post and fix these problems before release. (Oh, and if you're reading this: lose the cheesy box cover art.)

Labels: review

The Guild 2 #

Yesterday I took a look at the demo for The Guild 2. It's a strange game. It's somewhat like The Sims in that you have a character that has relationships with other people in the game, and you can start a family. It's somewhat like a role playing game in that you have classes, skills, abilities, attributes, experience points, combat, etc. It's somewhat like a city-building strategy game in that you can build mines, businesses, houses, and so on. The graphics and music are nice. The world feels alive—there are people wandering around, with jobs and relationships and government positions and alliances and feuds. While standing around, a random person came up to me and gave me a cake. I'm very impressed with the game world.

The problem is that someone forgot to design a fun game. In trying to do lots of different styles of games, it does none of them well.

The game is rather tedious. You have to keep track of your relationships with everyone else. These seem to be influenced by your position in society, your family, your religion, who you work for, and who works for you. It has more detail than The Sims (for example, you can buy objects and give them as gifts to someone) and more relationships to keep track of than in Tropico. The problem is that there's too much information, and you can't act on most of it. You only indirectly influence it. This is something that is impressive and thus appealing to game designers, but it's not actually any fun.

To run a business, you have to click on your cart, send it to the market, buy raw materials (prices are set by supply and demand) by dragging them into your cart, then send the cart back to your shop, drag the materials from the cart to the shop's inventory, click on an employee, and tell him to make an item. Then you wait for a while, and once the item is ready, you drag the item to the cart, send the cart to the market, and drag the item to the market stall to sell it (prices are set by supply and demand). It's impressive, but it's boring. Imagine if Warcraft had done this—you'd have to tell each orc to walk to the mine, pick up a tool, mine for metal, pick up the metal, carry it back to the storehouse, and then walk back to the mine. You have to do this for each business you run in The Guild 2. Although there is a way to set this on auto-pilot, there never should've been this much detail. The programmers wasted too much time with this.

There's also combat, positions in government, bribery, assassinations, thievery, a legal system (including court cases), and lots more complexity to this game. That's the real problem: there's too much to keep track of and do, and too little reward for doing it. You get to play out the drudgery of living as a serf in the Middle Ages. I can't even describe how bad the UI is.

There are also some amusing things in the game. Every building has a name: Better Homes, Lumpy & Liquid, The Hot Spot, Raw Iron Raw Power, A Waste of Paint, Roof Included, The Funny Farm. The help text is often strange:

... Scholars are also not adverse to compliments and gifts and will even let themselves be persuaded to dance.

Once the initial awkwardness has faded one can oft soften a reluctant scholar with soft embraces and gentle kisses, bewitch him in private conversation or even climb into a tub with him. But beware of using too much imagination in your courting, for scholars seldom appreciate variety.

There are odd player skills: Master of manure, Pack mule, Kama Sutra master, Exploiter, Great preacher, Deep sleep, Local club president, Face of innocence, Dorian Grayish. The description for the "Strong hair growth" skill starts out like this:

You have been blessed by nature with a curious biological phenomenon: whenever you must rot in the dungeon because of some misdeed, your hair begins to grow at a breathtaking speed. After a few hours, you look as though you have been mouldering for 30 years. ...

Even though the game doesn't look like it'll be any fun for most people, I do recommend that game developers try out the demo. Look for things that you might think would be cool in a game: multiple genres (from role playing to real time strategy to business simulation to action/combat), deep and complex simulation (relationships, businesses, employment, politics, law), open-endedness, etc. Try to figure out whether they are actually fun for a player or merely impressive to a developer. I would have loved to design and write a game like this. It's so impressive that it's sad to see that it's not at all fun.

Labels: review

An old classic: Settlers II #

Settlers II has been remade for its 10th anniversary. I've tried out the demo and it reminded me of all the things I liked about Settlers. The game is somewhat unusual. It's a building+war game, like Age of Empires, Tropico, Command & Conquer, etc., but its emphasis is on building and not on war.

One of the unusual features is the transportation model. In most games of this sort, people walk around wherever they need to go, and you can build roads to speed up their movement. In Settlers, you must build roads, and every road segment has a settler assigned to it. That settler will move goods back and forth along the road. You have to carefully plan your roads to handle the traffic; roads can become bottlenecks. Making road segments long means you use up fewer settlers and allows faster travel; making them short means you get a higher capacity. Roads also become paved and can have donkeys to increase capacity.

The transportation model changes the implementation strategy for the game. Usually you run a pathfinder (like A*) for each of the peasants, and combine that with a movement algorithm to avoid local obstacles. This can get expensive when you have lots of peasants. Each peasant handles a single type of good, usually assigned by you. For example, you might assign a peasant to be a miner; the pathfinder will find a path between the mine and the warehouse. There is no further distribution of goods; it goes into a global store that can be accessed instantaneously from anywhere. In Settlers, the peasants are not using the pathfinder. Instead, the pathfinder is used for materials and goods. They are physical objects that have locations and can move around. They can be put in a warehouse, but they have to be moved to the location where they get used. The peasants and road segments serve as capacity restrictions. If a good needs to move from one place to another and the road it needs to travel on is “full”, it waits for the road segment (and associated peasant) to free up. This works somewhat like a packet-switched computer network.

How do the goods “decide” where to go? A local approach would be to make each good perform pathfinding to its destination. Pathfinding on the road graph will be much faster than pathfinding on a grid, because there are far fewer segments and connection points. But how do they find their destinations? We could either keep a list of points that require certain goods, or we could build an influence map. It's possible with an influence map to not even need pathfinding. I'm not sure what Settlers actually does.

Another difference between Settlers and other building games is that the Settlers economy has much longer chains of production. Forests can be cut to produce wood. Wood are milled into wooden boards. Boards are used to build farms and other buildings. Farmland is used to raise crops, yielding grain. Grain is milled into flour. Wells produce water. Flour plus water is baked into bread. Grain plus water is turned into beer. Fishermen use fishing poles to catch fish. Hunters use spears to catch animals. Animals taken to the slaughterhouse become meat. Meat, fish, and bread are fed to miners. Miners can mine for coal, iron, granite, and gold. Coal and iron can be smelted into steel. Steel is taken to the metalworks to make tools such as spears, and to the armory to make swords and shields. Granite is turned into stone. Stone is used to make new types of buildings. Gold is turned into gold coins. Gold coins, swords, and shields are given to soldiers. Soldiers are needed at watchtowers, which expand your territory. The economy is complex.

Also unlike other building games, you don't control any of your people directly. You can indirectly control them by building things. To go to war, you need soldiers, but you never explicitly recruit or place soldiers; they are produced whenever you have enough of the needed goods (gold, beer, sword, shield). You can influence what gets transported by choosing a transportation priority for each type of good (this is like QoS for TCP/IP), and you can set the priority of having soldiers vs. builders.

At the start of the game, you don't need to worry about the full economy. For example, you can't build tools without steel, which requires coal and iron, which requires miners, which requires bread and meat, which requires grain and water and animals, which requires flour, which requires farms, which requires wooden boards, which requires wood. Instead, your initial warehouse includes many types of goods, from which you can jumpstart your economy. You don't need to make rarely used items like tools until later in the game, when your settlement is large. It's a nice way to gradually introduce complexity to the player.

It would be nice to be able to see general trends, like whether I'm building up more bread than I need, or whether people are perpetually low on water. It's hard to manage everything in your head by checking manually. If I were in charge of a town like that, I'd hire some people to gather information and alert me when something's wrong. Overall though it's a very interesting game, and not like other games I've played, so I think it's worth exploring.

Update: [2006-07-21] Sören M points me to a design document about transportation in Widelands (a game much like Settlers II).

Labels: review

A Tale in the Desert 3: First Impressions #

A Tale in the Desert is a rather odd game. It's a MMORPG based in ancient Egypt. There aren't any monsters to fight. Instead, you perform tasks like gathering, mining, farming, weaving, fishing, and so on. You use the materials you gather to make equipment, which you can use to make more complex materials and objects. Eventually you can build sculptures, buildings, and monuments. The game has a story to it, with a beginning, middle, and end. You and everyone else in the game is part of that story. The ending depends on the actions of all the players.

It's quite different from anything else I've seen. Although games like World of Warcraft have gathering and crafting tasks, the focus there is combat, whereas in this game, it's all about gathering, crafting, building, trading, and socializing. The tasks you need to perform can depend on what others have done. For example, you may need to build something larger than what anyone else nearby has built. Once you build it, your object remains in the world, visible to everyone. As I wandered around the game world, almost every object I saw was something created by a player. As a new player, I needed to find areas that weren't already occupied, so that I could set up the equipment I needed. Some of the basic resources (wood, sand, mud, grass, stone, etc.) are shared, so it helps if you set up a workspace away from others. As far as I can tell though, workspaces have a short lifespan, so you work in an area for a while and then move on.

The tasks you need to perform can also depend on other players. For example, you may need to build an sculpture and leave it out in the open so that passers-by can vote on whether it's attractive or an eyesore. Or you may need to talk to people and convince them of some cause. Or you may need to get people to join your guild. The social aspect is important; other people aren't there only to help you fight monsters. There's also the ability to propose new laws and get signatures/votes; if the new law gets passed, the game developers will implement it (remember LambdaMOO?). I didn't explore that aspect of the game.

The graphics aren't great, although they didn't bother me much. There's very little sound or music, and that hurts the game a great deal. Sound effects are incredibly important. The UI is awful. It looks like it was designed by programmers: there's lots of abstraction and generality, like scrollbars, arbitrarily sized dialogs, deep menu hierarchies, and an attempt to make everything vague so that it's reusable in other contexts. For example, to dry out grass and turn it into straw, you need to Drop the grass. This is “cool” in that it reuses an existing function, but I think the UI would be better with the task explicitly listed. The UI also offers very little feedback about objects and actions. There are lots of objects around. Some are usable and some are not. You won't know until you click and get a menu. There are lots of places where you can't do something, but it won't tell you that you can't until after you've attempted to do it. For example, when planting flax seeds, it allowed me to plant a second seed too close to the first, then it told me it was too close. Mark the area in red or something to give people early feedback about whether their actions are going to succeed. Don't let me do something that's not allowed.

Another problem with the UI, at least for a beginner like me, is that it doesn't really give you any hints about what to do. There's a huge list of tasks, but no way to learn how to perform them. For example, I was supposed to learn Carpentry. How should I do that? I have no idea. There's no tutorial as far as I can tell. I ended up going to the web and searching for the information. How was I to know that I should find the "SArch" building (whatever that stands for) and click on it?

I played for several hours and got through the ~30 starter tasks, with a lot of help from the web. That opened up new possibilities of projects I could do. However the game felt rather tedious and uninspiring. Let's see... I need 100 bricks. I'll collect mud, straw, and sand, then stand around for 10 minutes making bricks. Boring. There's no challenge in that. It's not interesting. It's likely that the social aspect makes up for it (the crowd I talked to was much friendlier and more mature than in any other game I've been in), but I didn't stick around long enough to find out.

Labels: review

World of Warcraft: First Impressions #

I've been playing World of Warcraft (WoW). It's the MMORPG to try. Last year I played around 250 hours of Guild Wars, but it's not really an MMORPG; it's somewhat like Diablo 2, which is multiplayer, but not massively so.

To get a good feel for WoW, I played over 50 hours over the past 10 days. I tried out 6 of 8 races (Alliance: Human, Night Elf, Gnome, Dwarf; Horde: Troll, Tauren), 6 of 8 character classes (Druid, Hunter, Paladin, Rogue, Warlock, Warrior), 4 of 12 professions (Mining, Skinning, Cooking, Fishing), and 1 talent (Marksmanship). I visited all 6 major cities (Stormwind, IronForge, Darnassus, Ogrimmar, Thunder Bluff, Undercity) and 3 of 4 Goblin cities (Ratchet, Gadgetzan, Booty Bay). I played mostly PvE, but also tried out PvP, both out in the open and in 1 of the 3 PvP instances (Warsong Gulch). I visited 1 of 36 PvE “instances” (Ragefire Chasm) and 12 of 40 major regions on the map (The Barrens, Durotar, Mulgore, Thousand Needles, Dun Morogh, Elwynn Forest, Westfall, Redridge Mountains, Teldrassil, Stranglethorn Vale, Tirisfal Glades, Darkshore). I tried out 1 minor quest from 2 special events (Midsummer Festival and Scourge Invasion).

Overall, I thought the game was well done. It's much more complex than Guild Wars and there are lots of different styles of play. Guild Wars offers character classes plus secondary classes, giving essentially 15 different combinations, although the choice of which class is primary and which is secondary gives each of those combinations two styles. WoW offers 40 combinations of races and classes. The races affect your appearance and give you bonuses and skills; the classes affect your clothing and give you bonuses and skills. Within each character, Guild Wars offers 4 attributes and plenty of skills influenced by those attributes; WoW offers attributes but also 3 talent trees and plenty of skills influenced by them. In Guild Wars, the attributes can be changed to suit each mission or area; thus, you don't have to choose which to specialize in. In WoW, attributes are influenced by race and class, but can be modified by items and spells. The talents are permanent choices, and thus you treat them like races and classes, and have 120 combinations of races, classes, and talents. So already WoW has a much richer set of choices (“builds”) in characters. But wait, there's more! In WoW, you also have professions, which are non-combat activities, such as Skinning (get leather or other materials from animals), Leatherworking (to turn leather into items), and Enchanting (to add magic to items). As you use the skill, you become more proficient in it, and that allows you to do more things with it (for example, when you are better at Skinning, you can skin from higher level animals). You can choose 2 of 9 main professions, plus up to 3 side professions. This raises the combinations of character builds to 4320, although in practice, only around 14 of the 36 combinations of professions make sense, so there are a “mere” 1680 character builds you might want to play. In Guild Wars, your weapon choices are largely determined by your character class. In WoW, they're influenced by class but you can learn to use new types of weapons. There are 16 types of weapons (such as Swords, Wands, Bows, etc.), and each character class starts out knowing some of them, and can learn up to 4 to 15 of them (varies by class). Once you choose a weapon, it increases the number of character builds to nearly 12,000. Compare that to 15 in Guild Wars and you'll get a sense of how rich this game is. I barely scratched the surface with what I tried out.

Each race has a starting location in the world. There are 8 races and 6 starting locations. This greatly increases replay value. In Guild Wars, there's one place everyone starts and explores, so the second time through you're not seeing anything new. In WoW, you can play 6 times and see brand new scenery each time. The WoW world is huge, varied, and non-linear; Guild Wars in contrast is fairly linear, much smaller, and has 5 types of areas (pre-Searing, post-Searing, jungle, desert, volcano). Different areas have monsters of different levels, so you can't venture in to the higher level areas without being killed. With several of my characters I did however manage to sneak by some monsters and get to high level areas, where one hit from a monster would kill me. There are special areas called instances. These are areas that are separate for each group of people playing. In Guild Wars, all areas other than the cities are instances; in WoW, most areas are not, so you can see lots of other people doing things unrelated to your party's actions (seeing other people is fun!).

There's just so much to do in World of Warcraft, and so many styles of play, that it's no wonder people spend huge amounts of time playing. There are also lots of repetitive actions that lead to variable results; this activates the gambling portions of the brain. For example, when performing quests to retrieve items, you will sometimes get the item and sometimes not; when killing monsters, you will sometimes get treasure and sometimes not; when fishing, you will sometimes get l fish (which can be eaten to gain health) and sometimes you will get treasure; when improving skills sometimes you will gain a skill point and sometimes not. Everything you do works this way; it's no wonder it's addictive.

The game was pretty smooth when it ran. Several times though the realm I was on would be down, and I couldn't log on. When I was on though everything was smooth and (as far as I could tell) bug-free. Blizzard seems to be pretty good at this.

I enjoyed the game but in the end I wasn't addicted to it (despite playing 50+ hours in 10 days). The main problem I saw was that the reward was far too low for the amount of time I spent. Running from place to place is really time consuming. At higher levels you can buy creatures to ride on, and this lowers travel time, but the reward is less pain rather than something rewarding in its own right.

The quests were often repetitive and boring. For example, I had a quest to go kill some ostrich-like monsters. It took a while to run out to that location and kill them. When I got back to town, I got a small reward and then was told to go out and kill some lions. I had to go back to the same area I was just in, kill lions, and go back. I was then told to kill some dinosaurs. I had to go back to the same area I was just in, kill dinosaurs, and go back. After that the series of hunting quests continued in a slightly different location with slightly different animals (zebras, more lions, more birds, and more dinosaurs). There were probably at least 15 quests like this. Another line of quests involved killing some variant of kobold, going back to town, then being told to kill a different variant of kobold in that same area, then going back to town, then being told to kill yet another variant of kobold in the same area. These kinds of quests really stretch out gameplay, because you have to run back and forth every time; you can't get get the next quest until you've finished the previous one. Occasionally the quest would be more interesting (for example, collecting dinosaur eggs while killing the dinosaurs), but it only seemed slightly interesting because the quests were boring.

I do like the whimsy in the game. There are lots of cultural references, silly items, etc. The dances are fun (for example, the orcs dance like MC Hammer). The graphics look cartoony, making the game feel more fun and less serious.

With the trial account I played, I couldn't participate in some of the interesting aspects of the game, like the auction system. In Guild Wars, you have to wander around, asking people for things to buy or sell. It's chaotic and it was so much of a pain, I rarely traded with anyone. With the WoW auction system, I think I would trade much more. Comparing trading in the two games really demonstrates how important efficient markets are. I also couldn't really get involved in guilds, which are apparently a lot of fun (but have high time requirements).

On my last day, I sold all my items and found that I had earned around 2.6 gold (26,000 copper pieces). This amount of wealth was unimaginable to me a few days earlier. The scale of wealth seems to go up exponentially. For example, a bag that can hold 8 items costs 4 times as much as a bag that can hold 6 items. Small increases in power come at a large increase in price. I think this is a good game design, but it felt strange to me. Despite getting so much, the last few days were just not much fun. Since I had only a short time left before my trial account was cancelled, I decided to kill off my main character in a most spectacular way. I went to the top of Thunder Bluff, the highest cliff I had found in the game, set myself on fire, and jumped off, to my death.

It's a very interesting and rich game. It's just not for me. It takes too much time and wasn't rewarding enough. If I were paying the monthly fee, I would feel like I had to play a lot to get my money's worth, and I'd end up playing even when it wasn't fun. The other problem I have with playing games online is that real-life interruptions can lead to my death in the game. If you have kids, you're going to have real-life interruptions. So I'll go back to playing Oblivion occasionally, and doing other projects (like writing a transportation game, going on scenic drives, and writing web articles). I do encourage people to try out the free trial (either from FilePlanet or by getting an invitation from someone who already plays), because it's an interesting game for game developers to study. I'm glad I tried it out. And I'm glad I didn't become addicted. :-)

Labels: review

Playing Oblivion #

In case you've been wondering why this blog (and progress on my game) has been quiet lately, it's because I've been playing The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. It's a fun game, in part because the NPCs do their own thing, and it's fun to watch them.

Tonight I was running north along one of the main roads, and a bandit jumped out to rob me. He jumped a bit too late, for I kept running with a bandit on my tail. I met another bandit, who also started chasing me. I then met a third bandit and continued to run. I then saw two of them turn and start chasing a woman on horseback. She delivers the newspaper daily to all the cities. She screams and starts to flee downhill. I turn around and start chasing the bandits, not because I want to save her, but because I want to watch the chase scene. After chasing her down the hill to the bay, they noticed me and started chasing me instead. She fled to the south and I went to the north. I decided to escape by swimming across the bay. To my amazement, they started swimming too. I have a magic item that doesn't require me to breathe underwater, so I went underwater and hoped they would drown. They didn't. They periodically came up for air. As I reached the other side of the bay, I looked down and saw the two of them coming up for air, then diving again. I wasn't able to escape.

I decided to turn east and head for a fort. Many forts contain monsters, and these monsters often fight humans, including bandits. Not all of my enemies are friendly towards one another. At the fort was a troll, a mudcrab, and a bear. I jumped up to a high perch and watched the two bandits defeat the three creatures. I then decided to lead them to a nearby cave. Along the way the bandits killed a wolf, and at the cave they met a minotaur and an ogre. In Oblivion, ogres are incredibly strong. It was here that I expected the bandits to meet their end. Instead, they fled! They swam across the bay, out of my trap.

I chased the bandits across the bay. I lost one of them, but saw the other one run up a hill. I chased him for a while but eventually he got away. I went back across the bay to the minotaur and ogre, and led them to a nearby goblin cave. It took three goblins to kill them. Now I have one goblin remaining. I took him to another cave, inhabited by a rival tribe of goblins. Four goblins from the rival tribe killed the one goblin I led there. I now had four goblins chasing me. So I took them back to the first goblin tribe's cave. I kept running back and forth, not actually fighting, but just leading goblins to each others' caves, and the hordes wiped each other out.

Playing this way is amusing.

Having played for 130 hours, I'm about halfway through Oblivion. It's an interesting game for a game programmer to play. You can guess what techniques they used for their AI, and then run experiments to see what happens. I'm probably not playing the way they meant the game to be played.

Labels: review

Impolite game: Spellforce 2 #

I no longer play Guild Wars, Black and White 2, or The Movies, so I've been looking for another game to buy. Battle for Middle Earth 2 and Spellforce 2 both looked interesting, so I downloaded their demos.

Spellforce 2 won't start the demo unless I install StarForce. What's the point of copy protecting a demo? And worse, StarForce is awful and I am not buying games with it. So Spellforce 2's demo goes into the recycle bin, and I'm trying out Battle for Middle Earth 2, which looks and sounds nice. It seems to use SafeDisc, which is perhaps not as bad as StarForce, but still annoying. It also has lots of splash screens that can't be aborted by pressing Esc or Enter or Space or by clicking the mouse. Why do games tell you to use NVidia/ATI and Intel/AMD? Do they really want to tell 75% of their audience that they've chosen badly? I haven't found a major commercial game as friendly as Guild Wars. Fortunately Guild Wars is about to release an expansion pack, so perhaps I'll wait for that.

Labels: review

Polite games #

A few months ago I mentioned that Guild Wars is polite, and as a result, I play a lot more. I still play Guild Wars occasionally. It's so easy to start up, and I don't have to go find the CD.

The two games I've gotten since then are The Movies and Black and White 2 (both from Lionhead Studios). Both of them have long startup sequences. They show me splash screens and advertisements (for Intel and ATI) every time. Then only after the splash screens are shown does the game start loading. At the very least the game should load while the splash screens are up! In addition, the CD has to be in the drive for the game to start. That means it's a major pain to go back and forth between the games.

I find that I'm playing the polite game more than the impolite games. If I'm in the mood to play a game but I have to go find the CD, I'm less likely to play that game. And every time I have to sit there looking at the Lionhead Studios logo, I'm reminded of the company that makes me sit there instead of taking me straight to the game.

Another impolite practice used by many game companies is to use nasty copy protection techniques. I don't get games from the file sharing networks, but it makes me unhappy that pirates are getting a better game experience than I am! (Copy protection gives people more incentive to get a pirate copy instead of buying the game.) What I find totally weird is that StarForce copy protection is even used for game demos. What's the point of making a free demo uncopyable?? StarForce remains on my system even though I've uninstalled the King Kong demo. That's awful. I'm not going to buy any of those games now.

You can find instructions for removing StarForce on this StarForce Boycott site.

Make your software polite, and I'll use it more. Make your software rude, and I'll avoid it.

Update: [2006-03-12] After removing the StarForce drivers, I discovered that my CD-ROM drive was in "PIO" mode instead of "DMA" mode like it should be. This is a symptom of StarForce having been on my system. I uninstalled the IDE drivers in Windows XP and rebooted, and it reinstalled them in DMA mode. PIO mode on some newer drives causes damage over time; I don't know if my drive has suffered any damage.

Labels: review

Black and White 2 AI #

I played Black and White 2 for many hours yesterday. The computer player and I were in a stalemate. The computer kept sending armies against me and I kept defeating them. I had built my town with walls around it, and then put archers on top of the walls. I was building up my strength while defending myself, in preparation for a big attack. I felt pretty safe.

After around 40 attacks, I realized that they weren't all the same. The computer wasn't using the same attackers each time. It tried the creature, archers, swordsmen, and catapults. It tried combinations of them. Sometimes it would come through my main entrance, and sometimes it would come around the back entrance to the city. The computer player also destroyed major sections of the city using the “earthquake” power, but I recovered from these too. After a while the enemy creature figured out that he should kick my wall in. His archers and swordsmen stayed back, out of range, while the creature came up and destroyed my wall, including the archers on it. After it breached the wall, the army swarmed into my town and killed half my people.

I rebuilt my wall and started to recover, but the computer's newly discovered strategy worked well. It tried several variants but kept going back to the same approach: kick down the wall, then swarm the town. This forced me to try some new strategies. Although being on the wall has advantages, it leaves the archers vulnerable when the enemy creature attacks the wall. So I moved them behind the wall. I've also learned to open my gate, wait for the enemy army to get close, then close the gate and set their army on fire. I have no good strategy for the creature knocking down my wall though, and I'm constantly losing townspeople and then rebuilding.

After a long stalemate, the computer AI learned how to attack more effectively, and now I'm having trouble keeping my city safe. I'm very impressed by the AI. I'm not sure how it's programmed, but it tried out many different things and learned which ones work the best. From the game AI techniques I've learned (genetic algorithms, neural networks, fuzzy logic, state machines, etc.), the AI in Black and White 2 seems to match most closely with what I know about reinforcement learning. It's a technique that uses online learning (observing results as the game is played) instead of training (from examples constructed ahead of time), allows both exploration (trying new things in order to learn) and exploitation (taking advantage of what you've learned), and associates rewards (like whether the attack was successful) with actions (like kicking down the wall and keeping the army away from my archers). I recommend Sutton and Barto's book if you want to learn more. It's entirely possible though that the game uses something much simpler that just happens to look impressive, but my guess is that it's using reinforcement learning.

Labels: review

Guild Wars Friendliness #

There's something about Guild Wars that I don't see mentioned much: it has a very friendly interface that encourages casual play.

• The CD doesn't have to be in the drive. When I'm thinking of playing, I don't need to take the previous CD out of the drive, put the Guild Wars CD in, and then start the game. I can just start the game right away. Since it's no hassle, I play a lot more.
• When I start the game, it goes right to the login prompt. No publisher splash screen. No developer splash screen. No video card maker splash screen. No sound library splash screen. No introductory movie. No copyright screen. No disclaimer screen. No menu. No loading progress bar. It's really quick and easy to get into the game. This encourages me to play more.
• While you're playing the game there are Minimize, Maximize, Close buttons at the top right corner. This lets you easily switch to another application or run the game in windowed mode or just stop playing. It acts much more like a standard application, and it's very smooth. I feel like I can play at any time, and then switch back to whatever I was doing.

All of these seem very minor but I think they add up to something big: I'm playing Guild Wars a lot (over 200 hours). I wish all games would be this way.

Labels: design , review

Guild Wars #

After playing Neverwinter Nights for a few months, I got tired of it. I played the main campaigns and enjoyed them. The problem is that the mods are much harder to deal with than they should be. It takes a lot of effort to find mods that you can play (level restrictions, number of players, good ratings, etc.). It then takes more effort than it should to download and install them. They come in ZIP, EXE, and RAR formats. They come with multiple files, each of which may have to be put into a different folder. Bioware could have made mods easier by keeping all the mod files in a single folder and by standardizing on the distribution format. For example, if the game could read ZIP files, you could just download the file and put it in a particular folder and it would be ready, without unpacking it. In any case, the main problem I had was that it was hard for me to find and try out mods, so I didn't try many, and I didn't find many that I liked.

I've been playing Guild Wars this week (22 hours so far). This is an action RPG, much like Diablo, but it also has more quests. One thing that struck me was that Diablo 2 wasn't considered an MMORPG, but Guild Wars sometimes is, and the two games aren't substantially different in that respect.

Diablo 2 lets you play offline (one player) or online (one or multiple players). Guild Wars lets you play online only. This seems like a good idea. If you know that everyone's online, you can have a much quicker update cycle (those of you who waited over a year for the 1.09 Diablo 2 patch know why this matters). So far I've had 3 small updates in 4 days. Requiring online play also means you can learn how people play and make game balance adjustments frequently.

Diablo 2, in online mode, puts you in one of many chat rooms. The main purposes of this room are to chat, to find people to play with, and to trade. There are several chat rooms (presumably to avoid overcrowding), including some specifically for trading. When joining a game, you see a list of games that are at your level (Normal/Nightmare/Hell). People generally want to find a game that's not only at their level but in the same general areas. They sometimes do this by announcing their area (“Act III - Staff quest”) in the game name, but there's no easy way to filter or sort the games to find the areas you care about. Once you join a game, you don't see everyone anymore; you only see your party. Every time you join a game, the world resets—all the monsters are back, and the layout is randomized. When you leave a game, you abandon your party.

Guild Wars feels like an MMORPG because it puts you into the game right away. You're in a city, with lots of other people around, and you can see everyone walking around, talking, getting quests, etc. But these cities are essentially chat rooms. Their main purpose is for people to chat, find people to play with, and trade. Once you join a party and go out to play the game, you don't see everyone anymore; you only see your party. Every time you go out, the world resets—all the monsters are back (but the layout is not randomzied as it was in Diablo). When teleport into a city, you abandon your party.

There are of course other differences. In Diablo, you can only get quests once you go into the game. In Guild Wars, you can get quests in the chat area (cities). Since a party may want to go into a city to get quests, the party is not broken up if you walk into a city; it's only broken up if you teleport. In Diablo, if you want to trade with someone, you find them in the chat room and then you have to create a game to trade with them. In Guild Wars, if you want to trade with someone, you can trade with them in the city where you met them; there's no need to go anywhere. Also, Guild Wars has a special trading chat channel. You can tune in to both the regular and the trading channel; you don't have to go somewhere to find the traders. Guild Wars also makes it easier to find a party or to play PvP.

Why does Guild Wars keep the Diablo-style chat vs. game area distinction? I think it's for efficiency. Chat areas handle hundreds of people; game areas handle up to four. Chat areas are easier to make efficient because you don't need strict ordering of events. If you say something and I say something at roughly the same time, it doesn't matter so much which is heard first. And it doesn't matter so much if it takes 250 ms to show up. If you attack someone and I attack someone at the same time, it matters a great deal which one occurred first, and it needs to be decided and sent to all clients much quicker than 250 ms. By segregating the chat (lots of clients, loose ordering of events, high latency) and the game (few clients, strict ordering of events, low latency), you can make both efficient. If you tried to combine the two, you open up a new hard problem: what happens when you have lots of clients and you need low latency? Trying to tackle that rare but important case makes your life as a game developer more difficult. You're spending less time on other things that may have mattered more to the players.

Another thing that Guild Wars doesn't handle is massive persistence. You can only drop items in the game areas, not the chat areas. So if you drop an item, it only has to be seen by a few other clients, and it goes away as soon as you enter a city. That way you don't need to coordinate item locations among tens of thousands of clients. You can assign each city area and each game area to a separate server. Since city and game servers keep no state, you can add more servers transparently. You don't have to require players to choose a server ahead of time and then find that they can't play with their friends, who happen to live on a different server.

So far I've been really impressed with what I can infer of the design of Guild Wars. It's fast, has great graphics, and lots of fun. It's an incredibly addictive game.

Labels: review

God Games: Locomotion #

I got Chris Sawyer’s Locomotion two weeks ago. I love Transport Tycoon. I have played several games in the same genre (Transport Giant, Railroad Tycoon, Roller Coaster Tycoon, etc.). Here are my thoughts after playing roughly 10 scenarios of Locomotion. I don’t just want to complain about the game. I do enjoy playing it. It’s just that there are some things that I think would make it much more enjoyable.

• Summaries. I like the summary views: lists of stations, towns, trains, trams, planes, etc. In my post about Transport Giant, I mentioned that it was really inconvenient to get any summaries. Locomotion is much better. You can sort the lists too. Minor suggestion: it would be nice if the list sort order was preserved, so you don’t have to re-sort when you re-open the list.
• Pathfinding. Unfortunately the pathfinding is really frustrating. There should be no need to add waypoints for trains. Pathfinding algorithms are efficient enough, especially on simple graph structures like railroads, that entire networks can be scanned easily. Minor suggestion: for rail networks, a simple efficiency trick would be to add “lookahead” shortcut links in the graph structure that skips ahead from one node to a node 10 spaces ahead.
• Building. Even after playing 10 games, I still find the building to be cumbersome. To edit something you right click on the road or track, but it’s hard to predict which road or track you will edit when you right click on something. Editing needs to be predictable. Locomotion has a definite advantage over Transport Tycoon in that there are many more track/road possibilities available. However, I still think drag & drop is the better approach. Suggestion: make drag & drop building work. I plan to write more on this subject soon.
• Signals. I like the way the rail signals are built. They are put on a section of track, not on a single point. The arrows on the one-way signals and roads are very nice! I am still puzzled by the various colors on the signals. I think I can figure out red-red-red, and green-red-red, but what does yellow-green-red mean? Minor suggestion: when you mouseover the signal, it can show you which trains are interacting with that signal.
• Groups. I find that I often need several vehicles that go on the same route and carry the same type of cargo. When this happens, I would like to view information about the entire group instead of seeing them one at a time, mixed in with other vehicles of the same type. Suggestion: automatically detect groups by looking for trains that share a route and cargo, and offer operations on the group: upgrade vehicles, modify the route, or change the cargo.
• Reliability. I think reliability was an important part of Transport Tycoon. Unfortunately in Locomotion reliability is a factor but you really have no control over it. Suggestion: add a “maintenance depot” that can be added to a station. When the train reaches the station that has a depot and that train needs service, it will receive service there (which takes more time). It should also be possible to add stations that are entirely for maintenance and not for cargo.
• Look-ahead Pathfinding. I like the idea of trains “looking ahead” to reserve track that they want to go on. However, it’s hard to figure out how far they look ahead. Suggestion: add a “headlight” that shows how far the train scans. (Perhaps the headlight it shown only when the vehicle is selected.)
• Bridges. I like that bridges are not limited to height 1 and that bridges can have curves and slopes. The various bridge types don’t really appeal to me though. The best ones are the ugliest. Suggestion: add a “reinforced concrete bridge” option that is very clean and flexible, supporting all the curves and slopes. Of course, if I had that, I would not use any of the other options.
• Construction Mode. While working on tracks, I frequently find that trains do not stop right away. In Transport Tycoon, you could safely work on tracks and trains would not derail. In Locomotion, they frequently crash while I am working on a track. Suggestion: when in construction mode, put construction signs/cones around the track, and make trains travel very slowly. They should not crash while in construction mode.
• Track Layouts. The track layouts in Locomotion are much nicer than in Transport Tycoon. There are lots of curves available. However, at times it is hard to see the tracks. For example, take a look at the second to last picture on this page about station layouts. It is so hard to see all the tracks that the author created a separate diagram showing them. Suggestion: when in construction mode, add a bright line showing each track segment, with large dots at the endpoints. This would be an overlay on top of the tracks so that you can see the structure.
• Visibility. Transport Tycoon offered a way to hide buildings, or at least to make them transparent. Simutrans offers a way to show only the foundations of buildings. Locomotion offers a way to hide the foreground buildings without hiding the background buildings. I like the idea, but there is a problem: when in construction mode, the foreground buildings still affect your mouse, even though you can’t see them! Suggestion: If you hide something from the eye, it should be hidden from the mouse as well. If I see something and click on it (or right click to delete/edit), the click should affect what I saw, not the hidden object in front of it.

That’s all for now. I think I have a way to make drag & drop building work with Locomotion’s more extensive set of road and rail segments. I hope to make a demo of it (and this is why I wanted to learn Flash). The basic idea is that you drag from edge to edge instead of from square to square. In addition, you use a modifier key (like shift) to raise/lower the altitude. I won’t know whether I like it until I try implementing it.

Labels: review

God Games: Transport Giant #

I tried out the Transport Giant demo. I like the premise. I love the graphics. I generally like this sort of game. However, there are some interface annoyances that, although forgiveable back in 1995 with Transport Tycoon, can't be overlooked in 2004. Unfortunately, the interface is annoying enough that I'm not planning to buy the game.

In this game you build transportation routes between cities and industries. Your goal is to make money, deliver goods, or whatever the scenario goals are. The demo limits you to transporting goods by horse on roads, but the full game also offers trains, ships, blimps, airplanes, and helicopters. It would be nice if in these "run a business" games, not all other businesses have to be your competitors. It would be nice if I could run the sawmill to goods part of the transportation chain without having to first run the wood to sawmill part. Railroad Tycoon 3 seems to have addressed this problem.

• When building stations, the “entrance” is always on the northwest side. This means building a road to get to certain stations is awkward.
• When building roads, adjacent roads don't always connect. You have to go back and connect some of the corners.
• There's a way to get a list of all your stations. But this list only offers the name. If you want any other details (cargo, profit, traffic, etc.), you have to click on a station in the list and then press a button (you can't even double click the station name). There's no way to go back to the list; you have to open up the list again and start at the top, scroll down to the next station, click on it, and so on.
• A minor bug: demolishing a single square of roadway costs $900,000 (in contrast, building it costs $5000).
• There's a way to get a list of all the vehicles, towns, and industries. But it has the same problem as the list of stations. There's only a name and no information about it. If I want to pick the town with the largest population or the lumber yard with the most lumber, I have to manually click on each one, write down or remember the number I want. If I want to see some information about all of my 94 horses, I have to click on each one (and even then, I can't get basic information like amount of revenue generated).
• When I want to assign horses to go on a certain route, I bring up a “schedule” screen. It seems like a reasonable UI. But to actually choose a horse, I have to click on the horse, then click on an arrow button. I can't just click or double-click on the horse. To choose a station to visit, I have to go back to the map (which is partially obscured by the scheduling dialog box) and click on the station. I can't choose from a list (especially a list sorted by something reasonable—like stations that process the same kind of good the horse is carrying). Once I choose the station, I have to choose what kind of cargo the horse should carry from there. I have to click on the cargo type icon, then click on an arrow button. It should automatically choose the type of cargo that is produced at that station. These extra steps make the interface more "general" (a sure sign that software engineers were designing this UI!) but they make the common case harder.
• I can't tell what's actually available at a station or what that station would like to have. There is a "Requires" list but it's often empty.
• I can't expand a station by clicking on it. I have to go into a separate expansion menu and then choose the type of station. This would make more sense if I could get a list of stations and upgrade many of them at the same time. Once I do go into the menu, there's a list of options, but they don't give me a good idea of the magnitude of the benefit.
• One of the things that annoyed me in Transport Tycoon is that sometimes I want multiple vehicles to travel the same route. If I want ten buses on a particular route, I have to repeat the setup ten times. In this game there's a shortcut—duplicate route. However, it only works for the initial route. After setting up lots of identical routes, I might need to change something. For example, in the demo scenario, after you deliver 50 wooden boards to a fort, it longer accepts boards, and only accepts passengers. I had to go into each of my 20 horses and change their route to deliver passengers. It was too much work, so I just let my horses keep delivering boards, at a loss.
• When I go into the schedule screen and I don't have a horse already, I have to exit the screen, go into a different screen, and buy a horse. I should be able to buy a horse and give it a schedule all from one screen.
• After a while, the horses got stuck at one particular station. There wasn't really anything I could do at that point.

The main goal in these sorts of games is to make money efficiently. To do this I need to be able to evaluate all the things I've set up—stations, routes, vehicles, industries. There seems to be no way to do this. I'm not sure how I'm really supposed to play the game if I can't know how much money each of my vehicles makes. Is corn profitable? I can't really tell. If there were a way to get the aggregate or annual revenue/cost for an individual vehicle, it would make my job possible but tedious. What I really want is a table listing all my vehicles (or stations, industries, routes) and how much each of them brings in, how much it costs, how many days it makes per trip, and other metrics. I want to group them by vehicle type, cargo type, destination station, or other attributes. For stations I need to know the amount of traffic coming through, the wait time is for loading/unloading, the average amount of goods I'm storing there, and so on. If I want to decide whether to build some extra, like a loading crane, how can I decide whether it's worth it? If have to know whether loading time is an issue. I want an Excel-like view: a table of rows and columns, each column sortable and filterable, with grouping (aggregation). These are the things I'd demand if I were running this business in real life; how can I run the business in a game without the data?

Maybe the game designers thought it'd be more fun if you weren't overwhelmed with data. That's a good goal, but I didn't find it fun, in a game about running a business, to run a business blind. I had nothing to use to make decisions. I think they need to start with a list of what the player is supposed to do and design the interface to match that, instead of designing the interface to match the data structures or internal simulation model. It looks like it could have been a great game, but ruined by a bad interface.

Labels: review

Books: Get in the Game #

Over the weekend I took a quick look at Get in the Game! by Marc Mencher. I don’t actually work in the game industry and don’t have a good way to evaluate the material. However, one thing stuck out (Chapter 2, pages 16–17):

Here’s an example of C code:

Printf("("Hello World" " \n);

Here’s an example of C++ code:

Ship.GetX(*ship);
Cout>> ""The stuff we want is over here";";

Here’s an example of Visual Basic code:

Public Sub Main()
   Send CGI_CONTENT_TYPE_TEXT_HTML
   Send vbCrLf
   Send "Hello World!"
End Sub

Here’s an example of Java code:

System.out.println("("Why is this Java code");");

If you know these programming languages, you’re probably laughing right now. Fortunately this isn’t a book that attempts to teach programming.

Labels: review