GWJ Podcast

The Gamers with Jobs crew invited me to do a Podcast with them a couple months ago, and I finally had a chance to join them last weekend. We spent about half the episode discussing the state of strategy gaming today, with some detours into the related-but-often-forgotten field of board gaming. Here’s the link.

If my audio sounds a little odd, it’s because my laptop power supply gave my microphone a weird buzzing noise. Rob was able to remove it in post-production, but that process also took out the low-range of my voice, which gives me that great “tin-can” sound.

Risk: Black Ops

Risk is a funny game. Almost everyone who is a gamer of some sort has played it, but almost no one continues to play it. A classic “gateway” game, Risk can give players enough of a taste of real strategy to lead them to better world conquest games (Diplomacy, History of the World, Axis & Allies) and then inevitably to the wonderful world of German gaming (Settlers of Catan, Power Grid, Carcassonne). Or, Risk can leave players shell-shocked from an eight-hour, late-night, caffeine-fueled marathon won by the guy who hunkered down in Australia, and they run right back to Monopoly and Scrabble. Risk either pushes players forward or scares them off, but who actually keeps it in their active rotation?

I definitely fall into the former category, and I am sure that I have not played Risk with my board gaming friends since the late ’80s, which was before I could even drive. Nonetheless, the Risk franchise has been undergoing a bit of a renaissance lately, based on some spin-offs with suprisingly high BoardGameGeek ratings. Now, Hasbro is going all the way with a full update of the standard version, to be released later this year. Until that time, a “stealth” version entitled Risk: Black Ops has been floating around the gaming world – only 1000 copies were printed – and I had a chance to playtest the game last week with some gamers on the Spore team.

The most important change is that victory is no longer based on world domination. Instead, eight randomly selected Objectives are the key; the first player to achieve three wins the game. The specific goals can vary from controlling Asia (always a classic!) to capturing a Continent in one turn to conquering a certain number of Cities. (Territories with Cities – randomly assigned at game start – are worth double for recruitment.) Further, each Objective is randomly assigned a Reward for the victor, such as an extra defense die or bonus recruits.

Note how many times I used the word “randomly” in the preceding paragraph. Black Ops first clear success is that, even when using the classic, fixed Earth map, the game’s “terrain” is always different depending on how everything shakes out during the set-up phase. Players are well advised to take a moment before claiming Territories to predict where conquest will be focused, depending on the game’s unique environment. The most important change, however, is the Objectives as they fundamentally shift the Risk‘s balance from a defensive game to an offensive one. In general, offensive games tend to be more fun as players get to actually do something instead of waiting for others to make the mistake of overextending their forces.

Because claiming Objectives is so important, players will focus all their attention and troops on achieving one during their individual turns. Maybe I can actually grab Asia this turn? Should I make a push to grab my neighbor’s Capital? Can I really pick up 18 Territories? These grand risks lead to an interesting gameplay rhythm; because the player before you may have stretched themselves thin to control North and South America for the Two Continents Objective, you now have a path from North Africa to their Capital in Argentina to grab the Enemy Capital Objective. In turn, the following player can now take advantage of your weakness in Africa to grab enough cities to achieve the 11 Cities Objective.

In the old version, players would have spent their time turtling, attacking just enough to earn a card in hopes of eventually booming. Risk: Black Ops, on the other hand, is all raid, all of the time, and for a game attempting to fit neatly within two hours, this change is a welcome one. The Rewards system can even allow for some interesting reversals of fortune; in one game, I was puttering along poorly until I opportunistically grabbed an enemy Capital to take the extra attack die Reward, enabling me to make a run and wipe out a neighbor, suddenly grabbing his two Objectives for the victory. Quite a few players are going to be shocked at just how quickly this game can end.

Black Ops is not without its flaws. The City concept sounds good in print but doesn’t work so well in action. Territories with Cities are worth double when recruiting new troops, making them valuable locations. However, two Objectives are specifically tied to capturing or controlling Cities, making them something of a hot potato. In our second playthrough, we actually avoided picking Cities during the initial set-up because these locations are marked for death, so to speak. While this tension is interesting, I felt like the game would be stronger if locations of value existed without regard to the all-important Objectives. Also, perhaps out of pure nostalgia, I prefer the old build-a-set card mechanic over the newer and much simpler one based on only two types of cards. Further, the card balance feels off as the game is over so quickly that one has a hard time imagining the advantages of holding out for more cards over the long-term instead of making a short-term push for another precious Objective.

Nonetheless, Black Ops is a genuinely good game, one that I anticipate coming back to many times in the future. The best thing about the design – and this is a tricky problem for designers working within an established franchise – is that the game still feels like Risk. The new rules are all simple extensions of the old core mechanics, almost like variations on a theme. No rule will feel alien to players comfortable with the old series. Thus, Black Ops (or whatever they are eventually going to call it) will be a perfect game for introducing casual players to real strategy games; I can easily imagine convincing my non-gaming friends to give it a try. They may not be ready for Agricola yet, but Risk‘s conversion rate is about to go up considerably.

By the way, here is a link to a nice interview with Rob Daviau, designer of the new version.

Ancient Strategy Games

Games journalist Troy S. Goodfellow just completed a very comprehensive retrospective on strategy games based in the ancient era. The scope is great as it extends all the way from Chris Crawford’s Legionnaire (1982) to Creative Assembly’s Rome: Total War (2004). (It’s telling, of course, that the first title belongs to a person and the last title to a company.) These are extensive pieces from a consistent point-of-view, including interviews with some of the older developers – exactly the type of series which would have been impossible to write before the Internet.

Here’s a good sample from the entry on Slitherine’s Legion (2002):

Most gamers are familiar with the uncanny valley – the idea that as photorealism and CGI get more convincing the more the human mind focuses on what is “off” about the animation. Strategy gaming has an uncanny valley, too. If one part of a system is persuasive, then it gets more difficult to accept generalizations in the other parts. Games can cross this valley, but they need to distract the user either with visuals or descriptive text – just enough to cover up the sleight of hand. By making the battle engine so compelling and period appropriate, Slitherine couldn’t help but draw attention to the cookie cutter cities, the weird unit recruitment system and how uninspired the strategic map looked most of the time. Then, given a chance to cut loose with a 3D battle engine in Legion: Arena, they stick on a really lame role playing segment where you level up troops and spend “fame points”.

If I had to choose the hardest thing in game design, it would probably be the decision about what and when to abstract. There is always a temptation for historical themed games to push hard on the realism on the stuff that designers are interested in and to punt the rest. Too much abstraction, of course, gets in the way of what Bruce Geryk has dubbed “touching history” – the reason why so many people are drawn to these games in the first place. Being more of a strategic than tactical mind, I think I’d prefer it if the battles were more general than the big picture stuff, but the trick is finding a nice balance somewhere in there.

We certainly ran into this problem quite a bit in the Civ universe – trying to make sure that the level of detail is consistent across all of the sub-systems (technology, diplomacy, resources, etc). In general, the problematic system is combat as the design challenges tend to suggest greater complexity, especially when compared with other, more tactical turn-based wargames.

For example, in the original Civ, Sid included Zone-of-Control rules lifted directly from hex-based games. They were an strange fit, both with Civ‘s broad audience and an already over-taxed AI. The extra complexity was at odds with the rest of the game, which split an entire nations production into three simple values: food, productions, and trade. Eventually, ZoC’s were dropped from the series.

Nonetheless, the simplified combat system has not been an overall success because – with infinite unit stacking and single city tiles – the game strongly encourages single-minded “island hopping” offensives, where the player concentrates their entire force on taking city A, then city B, then city C, and so on. The abstraction breaks down. Ultimately, Civ has succeeded over the years in spite of its combat system, not because of it. Overrunning knights with tanks is still enjoyable, of course, but the core fun of Civ comes from executing an over-arching strategy, not from the tactical military game.

I believe that we solved some of the franchise’s stickier problems with Civ4, but – I regret to say – not this one…

Design of the Times

So, subscribers of Game Developer magazine may have noticed that I have a new monthly writing gig. The April issue contains my first design column, entitled “Seven Deadly Strategy Sins.” I am actually sharing the column with Damion Schubert, of Bioware Austin, who is a noted MMO designer and fellow design blogger. I am glad to have a partner as I don’t want my admitted prejudices (designers should program; stories damage gameplay) to block out other viewpoints.

Readers of my blog may notice that – due to some tight deadlines – my first piece is essentially a rewrite of my 8 Things Not To Do entry from last year, this time with the focus solely on strategy games. My next column will be on the pluses and minuses of using 3D vs. 2D art and technology. I am just wrapping it up, so it won’t be seen in print for awhile.

At any rate, if readers have any suggestions as to future topics for discussion, I’d be interested in hear them…

Not Getting Burned

Robert Ashley of 1Up recently wrote an excellent article on the relationship between game developers and online forums, focusing on the very popular NeoGAF and the less popular but better connected Quarter to Three. I had a couple quotes:

I definitely can’t keep myself from wading into a thread about Civ, especially when it appears on a non-Civ forum, as the opinions tend to be more varied in the wider world. I will post from time to time to answer questions. However, it’s hard to know what to say, as I don’t believe developers should ever post opinions about their own games. One should never defend a game in public. It’s OK to post facts, but it is too hard to be objective when discussing attitudes, opinions, and feelings about games, especially your own.

Forums are a great way to get unfiltered feedback on your game, and I can think of many interesting ideas and suggestions for Civ that came from the forums. With Civ III, unfortunately, most of that feedback came after release, so the changes were only evident in the patches. To solve this problem with Civ IV, we pulled in around 100 of the best posters from the Civ forums into a private test session over a year before the game’s release.

My first experience with gaming forums came via the Civ-focued Apolyton and CivFanatics sites. In fact, I first heard about Brian Reynolds leaving Civ3 to start a new company on the former. I’ve had great experiences over the years at both places, from either gathering feedback or meeting true Civ fanatics that became either private testers, development consultants, or – in the case of Jon Shafer (Trip) and Alex Mantzaris (Alexman) – full-fledged Firaxians. There were some hairy moments to be sure (the release of Play the World comes to mind) but the franchise would have never grown in the same way without this direct interaction.

Nonetheless, I can’t help feeling a little bit of regret that I can never just post my normal thoughts within these environments. Everything I say publicly is always – whether I like it or not – a reflection on the company I work for, the people I work with, and the products I work on. I wish I could post whatever I want, whenever I would, but human nature dictates otherwise. Some game developers solve this problem by posting anonymously, but I have always been horrified at the prospect of being discovered saying something I would not be comfortable attaching to my own name. A little-known fact of the industry is that a number of private forums and mailing lists exist to let developers vent without fear of public exposure. These groups can suffer from being a little insular – they are essentially cliques, after all – but a little free communication is much better than none at all!

100 Million Sims

Apparently, the Sims franchise just recently sold its 100 millionth unit. This milestone suggests some interesting math. The original Sims was released on Feb 4, 2000 – 2,994 days ago – which means that Sims products have sold an average of 33,400 copies a day for over eight years!

As a matter of perspective, Stardock’s Brad Wardell recently stated that selling 100,000 units was a good threshold for success in the PC market, which means that the Sims franchise sold the equivalent of a hit PC game every 72 hours…

Wow.

Edit: Apparently, I fail at the maths.

Next Gen Buries the Lede

Yesterday, Next Generation released a listing of the best-selling games over the last 12 months. (Note the detail here – these are the best-selling games released and sold during the arbitrary period March 1, 2007 to March 1, 2008.) Today, they published an analysis of the data, including a remarkable graph on platform exclusives.

Obviously, it is no surprise that Nintendo rules the roost here with exclusives as their platforms have such unique user interfaces. However, there is another platform up here with a completely unique interface and yet a tiny number of exclusives – the PC. Apparently, the PC had only one exclusive title released in the last twelve months which showed up in the top 100 sales list. This is so appalling that I need to write it again: only one non-port PC game released last year was among the top 100 in sales!*

I find it bizarre to even think of native PC games as “exclusives” as it’s a format without an owner but also one with such a long, storied history. The chart will probably looks significantly different next year with the release of Spore and whichever Blizzard product comes out next. If nothing else, this chart emphasizes that the middle of the PC retail industry has disappeared entirely. Franchises like Civilization and Age of Empires and StarCraft are still quite safe, but oft-kilter games from major publishers like Majesty and Sacrifice and Tropico are gone, gone, gone, and they are not coming back.

All of this is not to say that the PC market is doomed. In fact, quite the opposite is happening as today – right now! – is the most profitable time in history to be making games on the PC. From Blizzard earning literally billions from World of Warcraft to PopCap crossing the $100 million revenue barrier from selling casual games to the untold millions Steam and its games are making from direct distribution.

Furthermore, a stealth PC games industry is emerging that is only slowing beginning to receive mainstream recognition. Indies are experiencing significant success, such as Ironclad’s Sins of a Solar Empire or Vic Davis’s Armageddon Empires. More importantly, however, small teams which approach games as a service, not a product, are showing the real future of PC gaming: MapleStory, Habbo Hotel, Puzzle Pirates, and so on. The Gower brothers, creators of the web-based MMO Runescape, are now the 654th richest men in the UK, each worth over $200 million.

Many developers do not consider these products as part of the games industry proper – at GDC this year, Cryptic Studios’s Creative Director Jack Emmert revealed, shockingly, that he had never even heard of MapleStory – but this too will change. With the Web’s explosive and continued growth, people are certainly using their PC’s more than ever. Accordingly, the PC games market should dwarf all other games markets in the long run. The market, however, will never be the same as it was during PC gaming’s “golden days” of the late-90s.

PC Games are Dead! Love Live PC Games!

*OK, actually more than one. I certainly would not claim that The Orange Box is a console game ported to the PC. That product messes with categorization in so many ways! Also, as Tom points out below, C&C 3 and Football Manager (and a couple others) are certainly PC-focused also. By the way, anyone want to guess what the only PC-exclusive title was to show up on that list? Don’t cheat and look it up!

Did I Get My Wish?

A few weeks ago, I was approached by Games for Windows Magazine to write a short piece for a “Three Wishes” article in the April/May issue. The idea would be to answer the question “If you could make a wish and have a programmer suddenly make any technology, however outlandish, available to you to make games, what would it be — and why?”

I wrote the following:

A Self-Service Digital Distribution Network

Digital Distribution is key to a bright future for PC Gaming. First, it tilts the economics strongly in favor of both the developer and – once retail is challenged – the consumer. Further, with services like Steam or TotalGaming, DRM is a bonus, not a penalty, as players can download their games to any PC in the world with an Internet connection.

However, Valve and Stardock – regardless of their commitment to independent developers – are still acting as gatekeepers; their services are not the same thing as a truly free marketplace. I would love to see a robust digital distribution system that worked something
like Amazon’s WebStores. Developers could sign-up using an automated system to upload their game, set prices, and manage their hosted pages. The owners would take a standard cut from all sales, and updates and support would be the responsibility of the developers. Some would falter under so much freedom, but the best talent – and the best games – would rise to the top.

As if on cue at GDC, Microsoft announced the long-rumored Xbox Live Community, an automated system for amateur game developers to share games built on the XNA framework with the entire Live community, including non-paying Silver members. The system will use peer review to keep out objectionable, copyrighted, or broken content. For the normally restrictive company, this move is quite bold and appears to be the real deal for bedroom coders hoping to find an audience in the console world.

So, did I get my wish? Obviously, my hope was for the PC market, but console environments have the same needs for an open market. The real question is pricing – will these games always be free? If not, what cut will Microsoft take? If the quality of the best XNA games is as high as I suspect them to be, this service will place independent developers of official Live Arcade games in an odd position, especially considering the recent royalty rate cuts. How will new independent IP be able to compete with free? Alternatively, if amateurs can charge for their games, why then should indies go through the much more rigorous certification process for official games? Obviously, Microsoft will put marketing resources and dashboard promotions behind official titles, but – if amateurs can charge for their games – the lines are about to get very blurry.

I fear that Microsoft will never allow the XNA developers to charge for their games, treating the Live Community like the minor leagues, from which they will “promote” popular titles to official status. While Microsoft would still deserve accolades for opening up their system like this, a genuine market ecosystem can only develop if these independents developers are able to make their own decisions and set their own prices. The opportunity here is tremendous, as Xbox Live – with so many users already used to buying MS Points – has already closed the penny gap. The games industry needs markets that are managed in certain ways (Points, distribution, community) and free in other ways (pricing, automated approval). I hope Microsoft finds the right combination.

Designing within Constraints

Playing to Lose: The Write-Ups

My recent GDC AI talk was written up in a few places. If you weren’t able to attend, they fill in the gaps left by the slides.

Next Generation
GameSpy
IGN Insider
Intrinsic Algorithm
Rob ‘Xemu’ Fermier