There was just couple of issues with Rune Quest’s system, perhaps biggest (to us) being:

The hit locations didn’t make the game “more realistic” experience or more fun. Okay, perhaps the fighting was slightly more realistic for the characters in-game, but it also mean that tracking hits and locations and shit just took more time, and made the combat “less realistic” experience for the players. In D&D you could blast fireballs, calculate damage quickly and continue killing more orcs. Okay, there was dice rolling involved but it was fast & quick.

In some sense, this was more realistic. If you think of “experiencing the fight”. I could immerse in the world and imagine myself throwing those fireballs while my fellow combatants would help killing the damn dragon, with everybody’s hands sweating (like in a real fight against any dragon). Rules didn’t get in the way of the experience, and “realism” happened in the mind of the players.

In Rune Quest, the fights took longer and there was more planning involved (should I hit that guy in the arm… or maybe go for the head for double damage?) and this made the experience less realistic for the players. Now you were more of thinking “what my character should do” instead of “what should I do?”

In a way, the more complex system becomes (in a game where computer cannot do the calculations) the less fun it becomes (unless of course you happen to like calculating combat results, I know there’s people who like that a lot). The fights will take longer: tracking of hits, movements and whatnot is more realistic for the game characters (since you take into account fatigue and everything)… but for the players, the experience is less realistic.

In pen & paper RPGs the so called “more realistic” (complex) systems are less realistic for players, while in more simpler games where combat is fast paced, the players can get better immersed in the world and experience a more realistic (or more fun) combat experience.

I’d follow Einstein’s advice on this:

Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Works a long way.

Classic.

Besides that, I think much about “what kind of game I want to experience?”

You?

If you ever think that your game’s theme is “too weird”, just think of what Mario Bros really is about.

This reminded me about one thing: when after finishing a game I think “this game was too short”, I’ve always have been thrilled about the game. Full Throttle was said to be too short adventure game. I think it was awesome game, something that I wanted to keep playing more. Same happened with Max Payne.

And same happens more and more.

If the game is “too short”, it just (probably) means you’ve enjoyed playing it “too much”. So to speak.

Short is good.

Too short even better.

I don’t need 40+ hour gaming experience. I want solid 15 minute snack that I can enjoy over and over when I want, if I want. And maybe end playing after few hours.

In fact, nowadays I feel that my time is so precious that I deliberately avoid playing games that are long. If somebody wants to sell me their game, they should make darn sure that I can finish it in 2 hours. I have no time for 40+ hour epic adventures.

In Space Alert, you have a crew of people (players) protecting a space ship and keeping things running. In the game session, you also need a CD player since mission info is played on CD. Each mission lasts exactly 10 minutes. It was strange how using real time (typical for video games) aspect in turn-based environment (typical for board games) turned the whole thing upside down. Since there is a time limit and new unexpected things happened, it felt much more like I was playing a video game rather than a board game.

Kind of works as an example that thinking outside the box and loaning a thing or two here and there can make gameplay totally different.

What I found pretty interesting was that: even though that ice yeti (not jedi, yeti) monster in the very beginning looked like crap (I was thinking something like muppets when I saw it) and the visual effects cannot compete with today’s technology (except of course the cool light saber effects, ahh…) the film was still pretty darn good. I had no problems watching it again. It was a retro trip.

Sure, it is old as hell but it’s sort of like so legendary thing that you just gotta watch it and amaze how Lucas & those other chaps pulled it together.

It’s just amazing how good movie series can be without super duper special effects.

Sort of reminds me ideology behind indie game development (at least if you look from today’s perspective). Episodes IV to VI beat I, II and III – yet they had smaller budgets, smaller crews, smaller effects and so on.

With smaller budget, you simply don’t have the resources to create something utterly stupid as Jar Jar Binks.

I rest my case.

It’s also quite legendary that Star Wars brand is so… huge. I don’t know how much money Star Wars stuff generates but since they are selling Darth Vader costume replicants for $600+ (yeh, just see here) you know you are witnessing something huge.

This part of Star Wars didn’t remind me about indie gaming…

And I’m not talking about zombie games here. I’m talking about games in general. One way or another, it’s so often that some form of violence that takes place in games in order to conflicts. Even Osmos is sort of combat where you need to eat other cells. In co-op games, there’s usually something that needs to be killed for progress to be made. (Sports games being sort of exception)

For my own project, I have done some progress in this area (but not necessarily enough…) as I intend to get different options for co-op. I’ve dotted down ideas ranging from “fixing/repairing objects”, “building (defenses)”, “fetching/moving objects (like fuel)”, “using objects” – desribed here in quite general terms and these will (most likely) bring some conflict, when there’s counter force (who can try sabotage repairs, hide objects, refuse to use them). Strangely, for some reason my mind is constantly about to suggest “yeh, repairs is nice… now, what about adding some shooting there?”

What is it in video games that makes us (well, at least me…) think violence when we intend to create conflict?

There’s one tiny thing I must add to this hint…

… since I’m a visual developer…

…buying “useless” stuff can be good sometimes.

I can imagine the game in my mind, but before I have a game art ready, I take images from other games and use them as my desktop wallpaper to help me get in the mood as in “this is how my game is going to look like”. (No, I’m not using them in my game). Sometimes, buying that extra stuff (that one won’t perhaps use in the game might help get the game done and enforce the style).

When I’m purchasing some art, I’m taking one step closer to “this is the style” decision and purchasing something requires me to spend some donuts. I’m investing in something, and I believe that this has some sort of impact on what I feel and think of things. When I’m purchasing something, I’m also going closer to a goal.

And one reason I buy things early is simple: I’m a visual person. I like to see my game in action.

When I was doing a card game prototyping (just for fun), the first thing I did was that I took some DevianArt images, made them into a deck of cards and ordered the thing. After the arrival (took a few weeks, just for the record) I had my own deck of cards to play with. It made a world difference in testing stuff. (Yeh, the game was sucky but at least my friends like the cards)

I’m going the same way in video game development: I like having at least some art right from the beginning since it helps me build the game around a certain theme. I’m much more about gameplay than anything else (story, theme aren’t as important as gameplay in my thinking: great gameplay can save the game, but great theme… well, perhaps sometimes – in my opinion) but if great gameplay is the meat & bones, then theme/art/music is the skin that makes the game much more enjoyable.

(Meatboy of course being an exception here)

For this reason, I don’t like prototyping with red and blue boxes. I’d rather have something enjoyable (doesn’t need to be finished or perfect, but something) to watch while testing.

Early visuals for the game help me visualize the game.

Your take on this, you like boxes and cones?

I feel that 3D just adds extra layer on a system that doesn’t need one. In 2D, it has everything that there’s needed, and 3D does not bring (in my opinion) anything that would make the game any better. And, as a bonus, I somehow like the (handdrawn) 2D art over 3D in adventure games. Always have.

Maybe it’s just me, but I feel adventure games should use 2D rather than 3D.

What you think?

Sure, there was also options to go in a team… but was it cooperative? Sometimes perhaps, sometimes perhaps not so.

Left 4 Dead is said to be a cooperative shooter, and there’s truth in this. For example, if you go solo, you end up in ground with zombie hordes all around you. Or one of the boss zombies catches you, and you need a teammate to aid you. There’s several things where a teammate is needed. It could be classified as a cooperative since you need others in order to win.

NHL ‘10 drops somewhat in the same category: you control one player on the ice, and for example scoring goals is much easier when there’s other team mates making solid passes. You can try play solo, but playing in team is more effective.

Which gets me to the point of what “cooperative” – to me – means in game.

Cooperation means that two (or more) players need others to help them out or they cannot proceed any further. In Army of Two this means helping the other guy climb up, who can then help you climb up. In Battlefield one guy can drive the tank, while other guy is in using the tank machine gun. In several games, there’s unique roles where each player needs to take part and help the whole team to survive.

Being in a same team doesn’t automatically make a game cooperative. But games that support situations where people can support each other. This makes a game cooperative, and usually fun too, in my pretty humble opinion.

If you have more examples on cooperation in games, please feel free bring ‘em here.

I’m now in the edge of “multiplay or not“, a theme which I mentioned couple of months ago. The idea of Great Escape remake is a nice one, but there’s one thing that’s lacking: multiplayer. The more I tested the game, the more I thought about it, the more I was drifting away from multiplayer.

And regarding multiplayer, I’m presenting myself a question which the game concept must pass:

“Would I enjoy playing this game?”

That’s the solution. That’s the answer to “multiplay or not” question.

The answer for single-player “Great Escape” remake is “yes, like once”.

If it was a multiplayer, probably a lot more often.

And how to make it multiplayer? Well, that’s the challenge. I’m doing some circling around and listing what kind of multiplayer games I enjoy and how I could present these concepts in a multiplayer game in a fun way. I think I’ve found the art style (minimalistic) and (possibly) a theme (prison/escape seems fine for now, although if I find a different one, this might go – samurai theme is still in the back of my head).

Next step: digging deeper in the ground of “what I enjoy in multiplayer games”.

Pick one that feels closest to your liking. I deliberately did not put 60/40 answers (just choose 50/50 instead then, since that’s closest).

I want to see “how much ‘both’” there is in games.

And of course all answers are correct answers, different games just have different amount of art/science in them.

What you think?

Why?

Some people might think that it would be better if you could respawn after death… but me thinks that this would ruin the gameplay. The fact that you could not respawn made it important to stay alive. You had to be careful since one shot could kill you. It made a huge impact on how people played the game. It wasn’t a shooter game the way Quake or others were. It was different.

Bit similar thing was introduced in Battlefield 1942. You would respawn… but only every 30 seconds or so. (I don’t know if nowadays you can define the respawn rate on the server, but anyway). This made you think a bit before rushing towards the enemy. You had to think a bit. You could rush… but it was a choice to consider.

After playing these 2 games, I tried playing Wolfenstein Enemy Territory… and didn’t really like it. Everybody was running screaming around shooting stuff that moves. Same happened with Quake Live.

Of course there was more than just respawn rate (such as character movement speed, weapon damage rates and such) but to illustrate how powerful impact respawn rate has, consider this. In Zombie Master mod for Half-life, there’s some servers/maps you respawn in the game after death, in some servers you have to wait until the round restarts. This makes the world of difference on the feeling.

On those servers where you respawn, the game is degenerates into running & shooting wildly… it’s brainless shooting. It becomes meaningless… boring too.

In maps where there’s no respawn, things immediately change to more tactical – and more careful playing. There’s meaning in playing.

We value rare things. Things like player’s life. Respawn rate has a big impact on this.

(My theory is that Buddhists must find life pretty boring.)

I started hunting for more info (couldn’t find it on some PC emulator just yet), and noticed that:

• Few years back, somebody started doing a remake of it. (I suppose it got never finished) and got cheered up.
• I saw some discussion threads where one guy was asking “Anyone know where I can find Great Escape…?” and some other guys wishing for “this should be fully remade using 3D”

Basically, it looks like nobody has done this game earlier… and that there might actually be interest for this. (Not that I care, I only care about me having fun nowadays).

Doing a proto of this sounds fun, so (1) I will try and see if I can find it somewhere to play (or just will check the Walkthrough videos to refresh my memory and see if I can remember what was fun about the game) and then (2) turn my ninja proto into a jailbreak prototype. This could first be thought bit as a “remake” of this fine classic, although for copyright – and for fun design – purposes I gotta change and add some (many) things quite likely.

You gimme the emulator, I’ll give you a beer
In case you happen to know where I could find an emulator to test this game, I’ll just might buy you a beer. Or two if you also tell it to me. But only for the first guy to enter (I know some smart guys would have applied if I would not add “only the first one gets the beer”). Via paypal. M’kay?

Update: Somebody already won and pointed me to http://www.zxspectrum.net/ (use browser search to locate the game). Twitter isn’t that useless after all.

It’s really great thing to have this blog and write things out loud. I’ve been pondering the theme, the replay value, and “purpose for the stealth” in my mind… and somehow I feel that the pieces start to get into the right places.

In paper this sounds pretty good: you can progress in game!

There’s just couple of issues with this system from a game design point-of-view. It sort of spoils the fun.

First point is that after completing enough games, you also need to have good enough average ratings in order to progress and gain “experience points”. This means that if your ratings are A in one game and C in other, your average is B. Since it’s a team game, your ratings depend also how your team mates play. If they give you good passes, you have good chances to score and get good stats as a right wing player for example. But… let’s suppose you play well, but lose the game and since one player can do only that much, it eventually affects your score and gives you a negative penalty. After one badly played game you need more than one good match to recover.

So, this means that some players rather end the game (I don’t) instead of completing, since they know they would get a bad rating. So… this is a party spoiler feature. I would have chosen absolute measurement in the system. Things like “Complete 100 games AND get 30 points in the last 10 games”. Now your bad history can ruin the fun. Basically, your progress sort of stops at one point (or requires toooooons of playing).

And then to the other bad point. The averages are based on system that you need to play by the game strategy. That’s sort of fun, except that sometimes it’s better not to follow the instructions, pick pocket the puck in the opponent’s side and possibly score a goal. You might get “stats A, positioning B” for doing that sort of thing – which kind of sucks.

And… if you position right (and don’t steal the puck), then your positioning rating might go to A, but stats are perhaps B or whatever. It’s a lose-lose situation since it means you cannot progress. Not very rewarding.

The worst part is that instead of enjoying playing the game (like I’ve always had with NHL ‘95) now I’ve started to watch those freaking “experience points”.

Goddamit.

The multiplayer games I’ve played are all about replay:

Zombie Panic (or other Half-life zombie mods): I kept playing the same 2-3 levels over and over.
• L4D: Versus or co-op mode, but I did spend some time playing the same levels.
• NHL ‘10 (and of course ‘95) is pretty obvious: skating on the ice with bit different teams doing the same thing over and over.

This got me thinking whether I should try find ways to offer replay value for the first level by various systems (such as randomizing the places of important objects, guards, guard AI, and so on) or whether I should focus on doing a totally handcrafted level where guards, objects, and everything are found from the designed locations.

Since stealth games are different from action games, adding the replay value might become tricky as the levels are somewhat “puzzles to be solved”. Once you know the route to complete the mission, the replay value is close to zero.

I know I’ll just start with simple system: I’ll design a map that needs to be “solved” cooperatively and see how that works out. Better not try make things more complex than necessary.

Your take on this?
If you’ve played online multiplayer games, what has been the most useful elements that have got you back to play the game over and over? To me, the biggest replay value has been people – the multiplayer gaming experience in itself. Even a simple game of Risk becomes much more fun when playing against Real People instead of AI.

Note for self: there’s tons of material about “replay value” in the net and design books. Re-reading some resources might bring more ideas on how to handle this.

What I like
To me, the one-timer experience is certainly a thing I look forward, but I also enjoy doing great passes to others that might shoot the puck in the net. In Zombie Panic I liked the collaboration in building defenses and shooting out zombies (or protecting other people). In L4D I liked to bandage others or get them up (or shoot zombies near them).

Some memorable moments
Not sure if these were actually so fun, but there’s 3 memorable online incidents that I really remember well.

First one happened in Zombie Panic. In this game, one side (humans) does barricades, while the other side – the zombies – try eat the freaking brainz until all humans are dead (or time runs out). Well, once when I looked forward to starting to play a round of zombie survival some guy started telling Michael Jackson jokes via the microphone. This was so unexpected that it sure was memorable. Reminds me that giving players a way to communicate can help them bring memorable moments.

Second recollection comes from NHL ‘10. In one game, there was 12 human controlled players (6 on each side). One of the opponents left the game for a moment and his player was standing in the ice without nobody controlling him. Well, one brainiac from our side got this idea and moved the idle player to our defense area – meaning the opponents couldn’t attack because it would have caused an offside. It was pretty interesting to see how a game of ice hockey turned into “move the player on one side of the blue line” when couple of guys started pushing the idle player. (This reminds me that NHL ‘10 sure needs some sort of “I’m idle” button, and it also means that when given tools to people, they find truly creative ways to change the whole gaming experience).

The third experience comes from Left 4 Dead. In this game, players are supposed to protect and support each other and make it to the next checkpoint. In one game, there was this one guy who constantly kept running solo and ended up beaten by the zombies – which made us 3 (the rest of the team) constantly helping him, and it was hindering our progress. It was pretty hilarious moment when quite near the end of the checkpoint this one guy got once again beaten up by zombies (and he was lying in ground) one of our teammates started shouting “leave him! leave him!” (since without him we could finish the map if the zombies killed him). Well, I pondered for a second and thought it was a sensible move. We run with the rest of the team to safety while you could still hear one guy shouting “leave him! get to the checkpoint!” – so much for cooperation…

Tell your story
Now I’d really be keen to hear what kind of multiplayer experiences have been most memorable to you?

What kind of multiplayer experiences you really enjoy?

What themes have you used in your games, and why you’ve chosen those?

Also, what favorite themes you guys have? Fantasy? World War II? What kind of themes you really enjoy seeing in games?

Is there a theme you’d like to see in games, but for some reason it’s rarely done?

(Disclaimer: I reserve the right to steal your theme idea and put it to my next game if it ticks me.)

When I get stuck, it’s just annoying.

I can spend some time working on some puzzle, but if there’s no hints and the only solution is to check some walkthrough from the Internetz I tend to just stop playing.

And of course I play puzzle games just once (after they are solved, why bother playing the same thing again?).

What do you think of puzzle games? Enjoying them?

1) Online multiplayer is cool. Like the coolest way to play games. NHL ‘10 gets boring playing against CPU… but put there 12 human players on the ice and you are looking at a totally different experience. Left 4 Dead – I tried it like once solo (boooooring), but go for online multiplayer and it rocks. (Versus mode makes it even rockier).

2) Player base.

That point number two is the tricky part, the part that makes online multiplayer slightly painful for indies. In order to get players, there needs to be players. But in case there’s no players, new players won’t appear.

(The AAA game publishers have sort of figured out a solution to this puzzle: pour millions and zillions of money into advertising and building hype. Then the game might have a chance.)

With indies, it’s slightly trickier.

Even AAA studios were vary of online multiplayer only games. Battlefield 1942 was an “online multiplayer” only game and publishers were staring the devs like a rotten fish or something (a true event based story I just made up) when they heard that it was going to be online only. I recall that it was said to the devs that they should get single player campaign or that game would never succeed.

Well, they didn’t. And the rest is history.

In case you don’t remember the game’s history, I’ll tell you: they made BF1942, they got an publisher, I bought the game, it was the most excellent game I had played for long time and I spent tons of time playing it several years ago, other people also bought tons of games and now the devs pretty much have a solid brand and tons of money in their pockets. Not sure about that last point, but the bottom line is: that game was a success.

The point is. I wonder if it’s monetary wise to even consider doing an online multiplayer only game as an indie. Businesswise my brain is telling me “stop thinking that, do a hidden object game”. The other side of the brain is saying “well, what kind of games do you play? Online multiplayer? Would it – like you know – make sense to focus on doing a game that you know you will truly like?”

Anyway, with my newly purchased PS3 I also got NHL ‘10.

There was several things that caught my eye in terms of “casual friendly”. Casual games are more about “guiding player gently to do something and then mainly rewarding the player” whereas hardcore games are more about “you gotta have fast reactions and if you fail you are dead”. Okay, that’s a tiny simplification, but you get the point.

In NHL ‘10, there’s several “casual gamer” friendly things.

Tutorials/learning puck handling
Before you can play the game, you can train how to shoot, pass and do stuff with the puck. There’s practice modes to give you a soft landing on real games.

Rewards/feedback
One really cool feature I noticed was that the coach gives feedback after each period. Depending how I played, I get feedback such as “good assists” or “avoid no bad penalties”. In the first game, I paid attention to these and they really felt good guidance on what to do more and what to avoid.

In-game guidance
During the game, there’s an arrow pointing “where to position”. For example, if I play the left wing attacker, the arrow points me “where I need to go”.

Many adventure or action games provide “where to go” information, but it was cool to see the same in a sports game. Really user friendly.

Penalty
Okay, playing as a goalie is hardcore: “if you do one mistake the opposing team will score”. And half of the time, you just wait for action to happen, and you have no control over getting your team to win – get some points you know.

But, in “be a pro” (or in online multiplayer) there’s a really sweet way to penalize player. It’s pretty obvious for an ice hockey game: penalties. In my first games, I was tackling too hard (doing bad things) and took penalties. Well, when you sit in the bench for 2 minutes (game time, that’s like 30 secs real time) watching others play… you sort of get the idea that “maybe I should stop getting penalties”.

It was cool way to penalize the player. Do stupidities = you don’t get to play for a moment.

Okay, there’s hardcore stuff as well
I’m not trying to say that NHL ‘10 is a casual game. Or that it would have anything to do with casual gaming. It’s a hardcore game. I’m just trying to make a point that there are several game design elements done similarly as in casual games. NHL has tons of hardcore things: first is the menus (they are from Dante’s hell: I have to press like 17 buttons and menu items before I get to play), then it’s the six axis controller (left stick to move, right stick handles the … well, stick. Down, up… buttons. That’s certainly not casual), difficulty levels (there’s really tough opponents), learning curve, and many many things.

But for me… it’s casual fun, I’m a casual hardcore guy anyway.

I got PS3 + NHL ‘10 couple of days ago. I read some reviews and heard that NHL provides a “be a pro mode” where you can create your own custom player and gain experience during your ice hockey career. After I heard about this (please keep in mind that my NHL experience stopped to ‘95 since all those ‘97, ‘01 were crappy) I thought that “it’s a stupid idea, people want to control their favorite NHL stars, not create their own guy there”. I knew that EA got this thing wrong.

Well, I knew it totally wrong. I got suck down in the game and got that “just one more game” feeling and forgot to write a blog post.

To break down the situation, here’s some facts:

• NHL ‘10 comes with “be a pro mode” where you create your own custom player.
• EA thinks this is a good idea: EA’s group of designers obviously think this is a good idea and they probably have some years of experience in doing ice hockey games and improving the game.
• Jesse Schell (author of Art of Game Design) suggest that this might be a good idea: in his book he mentions how “boys want to be superstars/heroes”. Don’t remember exactly how he put it, but basically I can draw a conclusion that book favors this idea.
• Then there’s this guy who plays NHL ‘10 using nickname “cheeseinmyhat” who had already decided that “be a pro is a sucky” idea before testing the game. That would be me.

EA thinks it a good idea.

Designer work suggest the same.

Yet I come “knowing” how “that won’t work”.

Boy was I wrong.

I tested the game once and immediately fell in love with the idea. I tested the game online and in the very beginning it was cool to see “HIETALAHTI” in the back of the jersey (hockey shirt? whadda heck is that called?). I was in the game now. It wasn’t just playing as Koivu or Selänne. I got in the game. And after some matches, when I saw “HIETALAHTI” appearing as 2nd star in the game – it was a great feeling.

And all because I could put my name somewhere.

Couple of notes to self:
- Saying “no” to something before checking/testing/evaluating the idea is not leading anywhere.
- Need to get more points in NHL ‘10. I wanna see my name more on those 3 game star selections.

P.S. If anyone wishes to play against – or with – me NHL ‘10 with PS3, you can find me using nick cheeseinmyhat.

It was totally different in the next Finland – USA match. The match became so that after 3 minutes or so, USA scored 0-1 due horrible error. Then couple of penalties and some minutes later it was 0-3. Then 0-6 after 15 minutes or so. It was slaughtering, and the first intermission wasn’t even over. At that point I went to bed to sleep. There was pretty much no point for me to watch the game as it was pretty certain that USA would win (1-6 was the end result).

So, when you “know” already who is going to win, there’s no point playing. One could argue that one should not stop fighting and all that… and yes, I agree on that. But I also agree with the design lesson that it’s much more fun to play when game provides just the right amount of challenge instead of playing a game that’s nearly impossible to win.

So, how can this be achieved?

Sometimes, it’s possible to provide handicap for the losing side. Some games have mechanisms that help the losing side to catch up. This can sometimes work pretty fine if done properly.

Some games might do the opposite (“rich get richer” attitude) or nothing.

In video games, it’s sometimes done so that the “AI balances/tweaks its behavior based on the game situation”. In video games, this feels like cheating. It can also lead to conclusions such as “why play as good as possible, if the computer will match my skills no matter what I do” – it’s like there’s no point of trying to get better since the computer is always mimicking my actions. It’s like playing chess with a mirror or something.

I think video games can learn from board game mechanisms in this issue. Board games don’t have similar AI that video games, thus they need to build the game mechanisms so that it works properly. Checking that side of the fence can be useful.

What you think? What kind of balancing you like in games? How you handle balancing in your game? How you like if computer difficulty is adjusted based on how well you are playing?

In the first chapter, I left the ammo box “somewhere in the level” on purpose. The guy would need to go near the ammo box, and when he is near enough - an in-game help text appears and instructs him on how to get the ammunition. It’s relatively simple, yet I wanted to have a small element of surprise when the guy first needs to check out the map a bit and think where he could find that ammo.

This can frustrate people. If they don’t have a clear idea on “how to find ammo” (and the first tip just says “you have no bullets, find more ammo”), then it can be frustrating. In the first map, the ammo can be find relatively fast and there shouldn’t be a big problems with it. I now even prepared a video to help people out.

But in the chapter 2. There I was sneaky. I decided to pile some stuff on top of the ammo box. First when you go through the map, you cannot see ammo box anywhere. Only if you realize that “hey, I can drag these objects away - and aha! here’s ammo!”. I wanted to give player a very brief puzzle, and to let him get the feeling of accomplishment when he realizes that he can actually search the level… move some trash away… and eventually find ammo.

Yet, one guy was getting frustrated since he could not complete Chapter 2 as “there was no ammo nor med kits to use”. Well, I decided to do a spoiler video to reveal how to go through it.

There’s a fine line between “giving fun lil’ puzzle” and “frustrating the player”. And the puzzles should fit the style of the game. I don’t know if players think “oh shit, I need to actually go through these piles of junk to find ammo” or “cool, not only I can barricade with right click but I can use the same thing to get access to some useful stuff”. I suppose I could have guided the player right there where the ammo is but I felt it would be like pampering the player. I trust the player of Dead Wake to figure out things on their own. Naturally I provide in-game hints that tell you “how to play the game” (how to move your character, how to barricade, what to do and so on), but I wanted to leave some room for little surprises as well.

Where do you draw a line?

Now as we’ve seen those happen… what could be a totally new genre?

Is it so that everything there is has been invented?

What about game based on sound control… like where visuals would not play a big role? Or could there be a simulation that would go much deeper than the current things… like a simulation that could help examine how human cloning (or whatever scientific stuff) happens. This is really tough, and I feel like this is too much to even think. I feel like everything has been already invented… and that new things are “just” combination of old. Or old things applied to new things. (Nothing wrong with this approach, as long as the end result equals Fun)

What could be a totally new genre?

(image © Duane Reed)

• Executing 2 designs for private interests, including yet another design for a “big name” game company (how many is that now? I’ve lost count); both hopefully coming to your favorite gaming platform “real soon now”!
• Producing small mobile titles under our publishing banner ByDesign Presents.
• 2 iPhone titles in development, including an action racer, & a strategy-action title.
• Continued development of our on-going IP, including Make Bouncy Bouncy & The Late Call!

2009 has been a real roller-coaster of a year for us, full of electrifying ups & downs!

Here’s hoping the rest of 2009 is as exciting!

Enjoy your time everyone!