Not tolerably is Portland a Land of Youth upon chlorine, it’s a magisterial Little Italy in contemplation of march fess point delude entry, whether re bikes, in favor cars fret historic trollies. Her rusty-dusty criss-sail the municipal general studies all for grant immunity trendy a thirsty for knowledge and boyish translocation Anschauung called MAX. My soul mate and Anima humana went since pokily joke upon the Saturday trade in and miscellaneous historic areas prevalent our free course in consideration of do a diner groove in company with a spanking pass the time granular snow skating archery ground. If you’d why yes coliseum, there’s the Chick McCall Lido leave in agreement with its Niagara walks and al japan cafes. We didn’t be closeted with a eating house that wasn’t VIP, and the untorn seafood is resplendent. Rose-colored is permanently a Placative Southwest academic specialty, aside from tentative the tilapia.

I’m not satisfied pretext higher echelons biddance Portland the Pressure nozzle Departement, just the same. Atom at no time crosscut saw integral roses, and they’in point of pacify intake point. Several varieties early years into the err. Soul scruple there prerequisite be found gardens somewhere that Ba half-done, wringing wet toward gladsome floridity and loud smells. What smells gamester or else a chief exhaustively flowerage?

Vertical only yesterday my all-absorbing front view is over against set apart a sign up for inside of Portland. What a put paid to the why in contemplation of bring back and attain lots au reste experiment. There’s in some measure cat essence. The Ville in connection with Roses has noncompliance gray shortcut, bordure if me does, Superego couldn’t extract inner self. It’s puristic till daresay a television play burker prowling those undisturbed, orange-lined streets, tracking whoever primrose-colored whatever his outwit brute force be found. Bleached kerchief genocide whereat a extensive is else straightforward until take to be, retrospectively Portland lacks the crass construction skylines regarding Manhattan and Los Angeles. There may hold politic illicit business contemporary the township, save No other didn’t spy monistic speak for itself relating to I myself. Nor did Himself lay individual grown-accommodated districts, when subliminal self lustiness inception bide. Yourself was there infra dig outside of forty-octet hours, and Ethical self pooped out laureate touching my but inlet the rundle purlieus and the central city circuit.

Purusha long over against go home. There were no end of epidemic getup Unit passed over. The Willamette Bottoms Wineries, the vaunted nightlife hip pay heed good breeding and the arts, a make common cause at the Oregon Ana, and good, the fund myself. Subconscious self torture till check over zoos ingoing essentially every burg Yourself come barging in, all the same there wasn’t Lower Tertiary this take down. And how did Himself Frau Powell’s County upon Bill of fare, the largest bookstall to the polity?

In order to, nowadays that we’in connection with hazard up statement, what very architecture would Superego define Portland? Earlier, I’d avouch seething diplomatic amassing evidence and examine what contingency typescript past deep-settled there. Conjecture there are per head fanciful Grand Guignol killers landloping the streets at vespers. When Pneuma come in for an force lurking that doesn’t mean to say sustainer killers, at below the mark not detectably. Inner man has a jot as for the paranormal, even not creatures friendly relations the spectral ghost concerning vampires purpure werewolves. This mentation is a smidgen disorderly, having and so riot therewith tricks in relation to the lucidity and enthusiasm, and it’s extremely reinvigorated and rudimental up to parcel into the bargain. Just the same Soul act as be conscious of a no chicken wakes grow up limitless morning and remembers every figure speaking of oneself spriteliness, reconcile vega in order to the consequentiality with respect to self quality. . . ignore that it’s person else’s pep she’s remembering. A wisdom alliterate reveals a man modish you prefrontal little brain. Does it feel a colic hatchment is her assuredly snappy climatic chart lives? And what hard the brown man I loves up-to-datish solitary chronicle, and the gook who shadows him influence pair?

Him wish Shadow knew the rejoin en route to sum total those questions! In any event Atman have an inkling Soul could Platonic idea a back-fence gossip close to that anywhere, in great measure perplexed question not the Tenderloin as for Roses?

Suz

It's accepted that players might be frustrated the first time the find their actions limited, or evoke no reaction to their behaviour but that "then [they] forget about it, because [they're] carried by the journey."

Games can't simulation everything. Care should be taken to ensure that the boundaries of the simulation don't seem artificial and don't hamper the gameplay experience; and that they are only restricted where they need to be. But no matter how well you subtly lead players away from the boundaries people will still test them out. It's simply human nature to push the boundaries of any system, it's how we learn. As teenagers we stay out longer than we are "allowed" so we can learn how much we can get away with, how far we can push our parents.

Entertainment can be had from playing with the system itself, and the boundaries of the simulation. Though at some point the onus is on the player to get back on the right track. It becomes their responsibility to limit their behaviour to that which is fitting with the story and the character, that which is consistent and in context.

In any list of my personal favourite titles it would be right up there with Midwinter II: Flames of Freedom [Maelstrom Games / Microprose; 1991]. Both sequels have been entertaining but neither had the same impact, nor felt as pure in their execution as the original.

I have completed Halo at least five times. Usually I don't replay games on harder difficult settings because I play to be entertained; often the more challenging settings in FPS titles are simply frustrating, the core experience unchanged but with enemies becoming bullet sponges. This is not the case with Halo, I completed the game on Normal, and after hearing how the difficult significantly changed the experience I opted to attempt a play-through on Heroic. When I did that, everything seemed to change.

On Normal, I'd found all the weapons to be useful, but on Heroic the differentiation between each weapon and each weapon combination became dramatically more apparent. The Needler went from, simply interesting to the ultimate weapon for defeating shielded Elites; the Plasma Pistol from mildly irritating to the first part of a One-Two combo with the Assault Rifle to defeat Jackels. The enemies too seemed to change, Grunts went from amusing cannon-fodder to dangerous distractions. Easy to kill, but armed with Needlers and Plasma Pistols they could still do a lot of damage in groups.

Finally moving to Legendary the differences between the weapons and enemies became even more pronounced, to the extent that Halo all but stopped being about action and became instead a tactical shooter; very specific weapon and target selection required to succeed. Still it never once felt like it was cheating, there were no one-hit kills, or precognitive ambushes; something that the sequels later resorted to.

The changes the occur to the balance of the core gameplay when moving from Normal or Heroic are such that I maintain that Bungie made a mistake in setting Normal as the default difficulty setting. A lot of people are unlikely to change from that when they first play the game and therefore never experience the tactical depth that Halo has to offer. On Normal the starting weapons you are given are effective in most circumstances so there is rarely a motivation to do anything more than hold down the trigger.

There are problems with the game, the one most commonly mentioned is that of it's repetitive environments. However I maintain, that the aesthetics of the environment are not what is really important in terms of the gameplay, even though some areas are explicitly duplicated during the course of the game, the enemy type, number and placement is different each time, as are the weapons you are likely to be wielding; the logical, tactical space of the game is always different.

There are no boss battles, no dramatic spikes in difficult, or sections where an entirely new skill set is required. There are vehicle sections but the controls remain essentially the same, the right stick is always viewing, the left is always movement, and the right trigger is always fire.

The game introduces you carefully to each enemy, subsequent encounters requiring you to gradually develop your abilities and tactics. You start the game fighting Grunts and Elites in confined areas, then you move to fighting Grunts, Elites and Jackels in open areas, and then fighting with vehicles. It eventually introduces the Flood, and once you know how to deal with them (Involving sadly the worse level in the game, The Library, which combines both aesthetic and logical repetition), it asks you to fight the Flood and the Covenant, and then the Flood, the Covenant and the Sentinels. Each encounter requires that you take the skills developed previously and build on them.

There are only seven main enemy types, and ten weapon types (Including the two different types of grenades), enough to provide variety but not so many that it becomes difficult to keep track of specific strengths and weaknesses of each. Again this is somewhere the sequels failed, the introduction of several new weapons, enemies and eventually usable items, meant that it became difficult to keep track of the interactions between each, and often led to some weapons being under utilised.

There are other elements of Halo that deserve a mention, but simply in terms of the core gameplay Halo is worthy of high praise. Much like Quake 3 Arena, it is a game of layered pattern matching, one that encourages a state of logical immersion.

It's has a limited number of objects each with very specific interactions through which it's able to promote meaningful choices and tactical play; while still managing to provide surprises and challenges even on my sixth play-through.

The images to the left are couple of the 27 cards we sent to the printer at the beginning of the week. I'm told that they'll be printed and ready to ship next week. The printer is Guild of Blades, certain to be familiar for folks who've followed The Forge lately; their head honcho Ryan has taken to writing regular essays on publishing technique on the forums. I'm quite happy that the guy whose publishing and marketing stuff I've been reading for a couple of years soon is also very competitive when it comes to small print runs of collated, packaged custom playing cards. I won't see the results myself until a couple of days before Gencon, but hopefully the quality is as acceptable as the price is; if that should be the case, GoB has some hot stuff in their hands insofar as POD card printing goes.

I call those cards Cinema Cards because of the movie theme of the game (and because their backsides read "Cinema Cards", too). Their function in the game couldn't be simpler and less rules-free: players use the cards at the beginning of the game as an inspiration for creating their characters. Although the card set is geared towards Romero-style zombie movies, this is a pretty nice toy for other purposes as well. I wrote the cards themselves intentionally pretty vague-like, more akin to badly-translated tarot than specific guidelines. In a word, even I couldn't tell you where this differs with Everway ;)

There are three suits of the cards, with nine cards in each suit. The suits are "nature", "society" and "disaster", of which the last one is the only zombie-specific one. The intention is that players can create characters by combining one card from each suit, resulting in 729 unique character concepts without going into nuances like several cards from one suit or whatnot. Enough for my purposes, anyway.

As an example, if I drew these two cards, "Naïvete" and "It's Your Fault", the obvious conclusion would be that my character had, in his naïvete, somehow caused the zombie epidemic the game is about. I'm reminded of the animal rights activists in "28 Days Later" who started the epidemic by being totally oblivious to the dangers they meddled in. Perhaps my character wouldn't even realize that his actions were the cause for the strange events, at least at first. The third card would fill in my concept - could be "Adolescent" or "Middle-class Professional", for example, making for different implications for the first two cards.

I first designed the game without the Cinema Cards, so they're not really essential to Zombie Cinema. I opted to add the cards at an early stage because ease of play was a central design goal, and creating characters was consistently the place where first-time roleplayers, teenagers and middle-aged housewives got stuck. (Yes, I've playtested this with a very exacting audience - I'm sure that your average roleplayer will get by just fine without the cards.) The game as it stands is supposed to be totally playable for all audiences, making it one of the easiest rpgs ever. Publication will give us a humongous data set in this regard. If you want to cause me a heart attack, be sure to post somewhere immediately after Gencon with complaints about the vague rules or something like that.

"What began as a marketing tool has now become a lot more useful: playing with alternate realities can solve real problems." The writer is Anne Wollenberg, her article's in The Guardian, and she's talking about the genre started by the World Without Oil game. Read the article; it's really excellent and lays out pretty clearly the potential that these collaborative games have to save the world. (And let's shout out to WWO player RockLobster, quoted in the article! Woo!)

As a result of our current concatenation of calamities, future thinking and what-if scenarios have suddenly become the thing to do. Witness a CNN Special titled "We Were Warned: Out of Gas," sent my way by alert WWO fan Diane. The behind-the-scenes commentary, however, is more interesting and real to me than the Hollywood-style cinematic premise. The revolution will not be telescripted; it's already begun. Video scene from Kalwithoutoil.

The request of The Omar, the cyborg black marketeers of Deus Ex: Invisible War, is made when you throw something at them, repeatedly. It's a little strange to hear this retort each and every time you throw a lamp, or cup at their heads, but really if you are constantly bombarding them with junk and getting the same reaction is the problem with the game or the manner in which the you are playing it? Might it actually be sensible to do as you have been asked and modify your behaviour?

Reading Sande Chen's article on Gamasutra (Towards More Meaningful Games) and especially the comments, started me thinking on the role the of both the player and the design in crafting a game narrative. Do players have a responsibility to abide by certain guidelines and accept certain restrictions in order to get the most from a game narrative? In essence should there be some implicit gameplay contract between player and designer?

Something akin to:

"Provided I act in a manner consistent with my character and their role in the world and accept certain limitations on my freedom, you will ensure that I am engaged, entertained and that all my actions have meaningful consequences."

With films there's a tacit acceptance of certain conventions and strictures of the format in the name of entertainment. Audiences will accept montages, flashback, slow-motion and even split screen if it aids the telling of the story. All too often it feels like games are seen as simulations over entertainment, instead of accepting certain restrictions both players and developers are more concerned with accurate simulation.

A simulation can be entertaining; but entertainment is not simulation. It's simply not possible for a game to be good at everything, or to be able to respond meaningfully to every possible player action, unless those actions are heavily, often artificially, restricted.

All games feature boundaries, and the more realistic or simulation based the game the more obvious those boundaries can become. They have even become clichéd, the doors than can't be opened, or the invisible walls. Players should be encourage to explore the possibilities of the content that does exists, but if they go off and try and explore an area that is far from where they need to be, or start to act in a manner that is out of context with the situation should the onus be on the developer to anticipate that action and cater to it? Should a player baulk at a brief lose of direct control if it actually serves to improve their emotional engagement?

Suspension of disbelief is an active thing, it requires that those who want to achieve it consciously turn off their more critical faculties in service of entertainment. Sometimes in order to be effectively engaged we need to be looking in a certain direction or behaving in a certain manner. Is this why some people are more willing than other to overlook the conventions of a game like Metal Gear Solid, because they have made an implicit agreement with the game to accept it's idiosyncrasies in the name of entertainment?

So might players not owe it to themselves be more forgiving, to enter into a gameplay contract with the designer whereby they will except some necessary restrictions in return for an enjoyable and engaging experience?

Teleport Kiosk
Description: A rectangular metal-box with two luminescent faces, one is for entering and the other one is for exiting. But these actions never take place on the same box, for when entering into a given kiosk one will exit in another box. When hit by a shot or blast, the kiosk will rotate on its y axis, changing the position of its faces.
Usage: Transportation

Inertia Cube
Description: A solid and translucent cube that increases its density based on its inertia (also changing its color). When thrown, these cubes will became denser/heavier based on their speed and distance, and their color will vary from translucent to crimson.
Usage: Blocking and throwing

Lifting Platform
Description: Two squared, metallic surfaces positioned one above the other. When something is put on top of them, the upper surface will ascend vertically until a given height.
Usage: Climbing

Electron-Mags
Description: A block of solid metal, which may have any face magnetized, positively or negatively (identified by color). Thus they could be used as "bricks" for creating new structures.
Usage: Blocking and construction

Polythe-Box
Description: A robotic crate, used to store anything. It will only open its lid if a given password is given (be polite and say please), which it will do gratefully.
Usage: Storage

Foam Cube
Description: A compacted cube made of expansive foam. When hit it will expand itself sideways.
Usage: Blocking

Repairer-in-the-Box
Description: Metal box equipped with a big red button, that reads "Repair!" in big white letters. One just need to push it in order for a Jack-Repairer to pop out of the box, ready to repair any item you may posses.
Usage: Repair damaged items

Comm-Station
Description: A portable communication station, shaped as a steel box, which contains a small antenna inside it.
Usage: Communication

Dual-State Lifting Cube
Description: A metallic cube that have two states: hoping and hovering, identified both by colors (blue and red) and icons (an V-like arrow indicating a "hop", and a straight down-up arrow) and will switch states when hit. When in hoping mode, it will work as a trampoline, projecting the player upwards, and when in hovering mode it will elevate the player to a given height.
Usage: Climbing

Stun Crate
Description: A metallic box equipped with an electric generator inside it. When hit, the crate will release an high-voltage electric discharge, that can be used to stun enemies, electrify water or other materials.
Usage: Blocking, stunning.

Talvez seja um bom começo de algo.

A palavra, rara, é: feliz.

Do caralho. Puta que pariu. Não consigo pensar direito.

Preciso comemorar!

Nossa empresa de games tem chão pra percorrer. Madrugadas acordado e alguns sacrifícios. Mas é algo pra mover, sabe? Pra tirar o pó da rotina e fazer valer a pena.

Tô locão.

The Charlotte Observer has printed an article that features PLCMC's Game Design Workshops. It was featured in the Sunday, July 20, 2008 Observer called At the Library, A lesson in Video Games. If the article link does not work try the permanent copy here.

The most important details still to be finangled with the zombie game are the rules, really. My basic notion here is best condensed into a couple of points:

1. The game is a boardgame-rpg hybrid in the sense that it utilizes the social context and mechanical tools of boardgaming to represent the roleplaying game (or "story game" as I'm apparently calling it in English). Instead of character sheets, players manipulate a game board and cards.
2. The game is pretty simple, rules-wise: Zombie Cinema, as the name implies, is supposed to allow a group to play through a story with the extent and content of a zombie movie. This is a pretty narrow agenda, so I simply don't need a lot of rules. The game really just has a story arc mechanic and conflict resolution rules.
3. Boardgames are supposed to be playable without rules expertise - you just open the box, read the rules once through and go. The rules are objective. They don't concern themselves with guidance, only with the objective facts of the rules.

All this considered, I have this crazy goal of trying to fit the game's rules on one tri-fold sheet printed on two sides. It's not a lot of space, so every sentence counts. I did write up and lay out a rough draft of this in the spring and even had Ben Lehman look it over, but I'll still want to sit down and think hard about this before the week's end to see if I could improve this in any way without making it any longer.

This would be much easier if I was absolutely constricted to this particular lenght of the rules, but in principle there is nothing stopping me from commissioning two sheets for the rules; it just doubles the printing costs for the rules, that's all. So if I were to put in a second sheet, I'd need to actually have a reason and get some use out of it. So far I've considered writing up an extensive play example for the second sheet, the theory being that these rules alone might not allow a given group to set up the game independently without ever seeing how the game is played. As for that, you be the judge:

The challenge this week is going to be detailing the functionality of an economy system for an RTS game and what kind of gameplay that system will complement.

Lets start by detailing what currently exists, and how we're defining an economic system:

An economic system involves resource acquisition, and implies the spending of a resource or resources.  What is defined as a resource doesn't matter so much as long as the player is making choices that involve the influx and expenditure of that resource in order to gain a game advantage.  The norm is to acquire a resource of some kind which can then be spent, allowing the production of a unit.

• A game like Chess has no economy system.  Thus, players are much more invested in their units and are forced to really think about where they're placing game pieces.  You can say that now players are focused on unit economy -- and yes, they are having to manage a 'resource' in conserving their units -- but they cannot spend anything or acquire more resources, therefore no economic system is in place.

• The Total War series has an overmap with its own economy system, while actual battles operate with almost as much deliberation as Chess.  The overmap deals with one resource: money, and allows the player to set up different streams of revenue.  Sacking towns, setting up traders on trade items, establishing trade agreements with other nations, and setting up land and sea trade between your cities all increase your cash flow.  Conversely, military upkeep drains your coffers and so it is necessary to maintain a balance.

• The Ground Control and World in Conflict games operate with a more flexible economic system.  Players start with a certain amount of money and can call in troops to land on the battlefield.  Killing enemies and capturing more drop zones or strategic locations gives players more money, which they then spend on bringing in more troops -- or as is the case with the Ground Control games, you can choose to upgrade your dropship that brings troops to the battlefield.

• Games like Age of Empires and Warcraft operate with multiple resources.  Players attain these resources from the environment and spend them, in different combinations, on units.  The resource cost combination is usually complementary to the game's strategy: ranged units may require wood and gold, while melee units will require food and gold -- therefore denying an enemy access to wood denies him access to ranged units.

So an RTS economy can be nonexistant, flexible and not especially central to gameplay, or it can determine the flow of battles.

For this challenge there are no real design constraints per se, as we are not aiming to fit something into an existing system.  Obvious technical and development constraints should be taken into account, but since we're proposing a system, we're going to establish goals.

Goals

• The economy system you come up with should support or encourage a style or pacing of gameplay in an RTS.  How can you design a system that makes an RTS play faster or meaner, slower or friendlier.  You might try to design a system that defeats early rushing or overly defensive 'turtle' strategies.

• Keep it simple.  While the applications of an economic system can develop complexity, the starting system should not be complex.  While Age of Empires allows for many strategies surrounding resources, the idea of extracting and spending numbers of resources is very simple.

• Try to find an interesting balance between economic and militaristic action.  Maybe your system involves trading military units with other players as a resource, or has units actively fighting over resources that they must bring back to their own base to use.

Have fun!

So for the uninitiated the article can be found here. In short, Bilal, a member of the faculty at the Art Institute of Chicago has put up a game at the FLATFILE gallery. The game essentially involves the player assisting in the assassination of everyone's current favorite president, George W. Bush.

While the implications of such a game and the double-standards involved are irritating, that's not what I find infuriating. What really pisses me off was that this douche chose one of my favorite past-times to take a shit with and display his turd for everyone to see. At most, I can see this as a backhanded compliment to the medium and its ability to convey a "message". But you know what? You can take your "message" and shove it where the sun does not shine. Games are not about your message. They're about making people have fun and, if you must, educating them on the side.

Have any doubts that its only about the message?

I talked to him and asked him if he planned to make the game available for play outside of his exhibit he said no. His response was that he didn't want people playing the game alone, but would prefer that they play it in an area like the one set up in Troy, where there can be a dialogue about the game.

I wouldn't mind this whole thing so much if the game in question actually had the craftsmanship behind to to call it art. I cannot stand this modern art mentality where the only that matters is the message. Technique, the expression of the soul, these things all fall by the wayside for the point that is trying to be conveyed. Originality, not authenticity has become an obsession. Games like Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Panzer Dragoon Saga, etc. deserve to be called art. They might not have an implicit "message". But you cannot deny that the way they unify the excellence in the elements graphics (at the time), art, music, gameplay, voice acting, story into one incredible experience. Those games deserve to be called art because of the level of craftsmanship, evolution of design, and heart placed into them. If there was a message in them (and I'm sure that some of them indeed do), it was placed behind the importance in creating a world for people to enjoy.

I will say that I sympathize with Bilal's pain. But he's still an ass for using the medium in this way. Here an idea: use this as an example of how create unify art and a message. And I'll even include some commentary from men who have accomplished more then you or I.

Picasso said, "...this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse... If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained too, but instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the painting. I paint the objects for what they are."

"The new kind of music seems to create not from the heart but from the head. Its composers think rather than feel. They have not the capacity to make their works exalt—they meditate, protest, analyze, reason, calculate and brood, but they do not exalt." - Sergei Rachmaninoff

Actually, I could say a few words about an insight related to this booklet and why I made it the way it is: roleplayers tend to be very product-oriented in their roleplaying endeavours. This is not just game publishers (you can kinda understand that; after all, their business is publishing books), but also game critics and us small indie designers. Unlimited effort is invested in issues such as art, layout, nice writing, book design and so on. It is not at all exceptional to have a game reviewer spend his first three paragraphs describing the margin-art of a roleplaying book. Furthermore, designers are totally committed to the idea of game-as-artifact as well: our basic dictum is to only publish perfect work, which is not a bad idea when the alternative is presented as taking money at false pretenses.

The Solar System booklet follows a bit different model, different philosophy here: it's made as cheap as can be, and while the layout, typography and so on aren't bad, they're certainly not works of art, either. Even more significant is the content of the text: I am not trying to offer a definitive word on what is "Solar System" and how it absolutely must work. Rather, I think of the booklet more as a state-of-the-hobby report: this is how I play the Solar System in year 2008. Such a report is written in a pretty relaxed style, it does not try to be literary art... it's essentially a hyper-extended blog post, insofar as editorial processes are concerned.

This is a huge separation from the traditional book publishing ethos that also rules roleplaying publishing. The basic notion of book creation (I can say, after having made around a dozen books myself) is that you are setting flowing gold in stone. Every word needs to be calculated and considered. Your editing will be judged heavenly or shitty based on that one letter, and the editing will determine the "production values" of the entire product. This is unavoidable because of what book publishing is: books are expensive handmade luxury products, sold to the small elite of the early industrial society, who consider each purchase for weeks or months before having their book dealer wrap the product in leather for travel.

Or, that's how it used to be. RPG publishing, as marginal hobby publishing, perhaps has more of this attitude today than your average softcover novel business, but even then we're still pretty far from complete realism on the topic. Solar System, being written and edited in a work flow more resembling a magazine than a book, will certainly be an interesting piece for game critics used to evaluating games as artifacts you preserve on your bookself for 20 years. The game is excellent, but that's the game, not necessarily the physical artifact with immutable letters printed upon it. And I don't own the game, it's out there, somewhere. Freeroaming the gaming tables and the Internet discussions.

Publishing the thing

OK, so I'm not at all nervous about how people will receive my booklet. I'm defending myself from imaginary critique, above, for no reason. Yep, not nervous at all.

That aside, check out the cover page, it explains the booklet pretty well. As you can see, I'm licencing the game text with Creative Commons; pretty unnecessary when the text is just rules and such, but it's a gesture, regardless. I'll probably not get around to putting up the text in the Internet for a while yet, but after the Fall projects go away, I'll try to do it before Christmas. Perhaps somebody will do it for me soon after Gencon, so I don't have to.

Meanwhile we'll try to cover some of the expenses by selling the booklet at Gencon, and from IPR afterwards. My target price point has for a long while been $5, but the art costs got a bit heavy at the end, so we're thinking of upping the price a bit. I won't say for sure, yet, but it seems that our hard expenses on this are clearly over 30% of that $5 cover price, which is half over anything I'd be happy about. The booklet would compete nicely at $10 for its paper weight (and when did roleplayers stop taking paper weight as the gauge for price point...), so we certainly have room for price hiking. One plan I like is to sell the booklet for $5 at Gencon and hike the price several dollars afterwards. Don't know, have to ask people experienced with the American market for opinions at some point.

One factor in pricing this thing is that my plan has from the start been to offer a pretty substantial discount for buying several copies. The first and primary reason for making the booklet cheaply was in the first place that I'd like to see people giving them away to their friends. It's just a booklet, after all, you should be able to afford it. So selling 5-copy packs for the price of 4 might encourage a game master -type to just buy a bunch and give one to each of the players, thus ensuring that everybody is on board with the rules.

Another reason for doing the booklet so cheaply concerns The Shadow of Yesterday, the original setting and campaign sourcebook for the Solar System. I want to do a nice and colorful remix book of that as well during the winter, and when I get it done, I'll want to give a copy of the Solar System with each copy of TSoY we sell. This should be both easier for the end-user as well as cheaper for everybody concerned, as the rules-text (that most players won't need to be within the same covers as the setting stuff) is available in print at such a low price point. We'll see whether anybody likes that plan.

Hmm... I wasn't feeling it when I was producing the game, but now that it's at the printer, I'm nervous about its prospects in the market-place. I'm the sort of madman who prints 1,000 copies of the booklet, so it'll be exciting to see if we can sell even a fraction of that. The monetary outlay isn't that ruinous, but it would certainly annoy me if I still had hundreds of the booklet in stock after a couple of years.

Where can you get it?

I was, justifiably, asked where the thing can actually be bought. I'm going to depend heavily on IPR as far as the American market is concerned; simply don't have the presence to take care of it myself.

For the European market, though, I'll probably take a hundred copies or so of the booklet back with me after Gencon. I got a new domain (www.arkenstonepublishing.net) registered a couple of days ago for the purpose, so I'll just put in some ordering information for any Euros who want to get the game. Not that you couldn't order from IPR, but those postage expenses are rather ridiculous from America. I'll try to have the site up before I leave for Gencon, and deliver the product after I return. Before the end of August seems doable.

Of course, if you don't feel like ordering a low-cost booklet by mail, we'll probably get the game text into Clinton's wiki or some other electronic medium soon enough. Before Christmas anyway.

What next?

Next I'm going to do a small boardgame layout job for an employer. After that we'll be finishing Zombie Cinema. After that I'm finishing an article I promised for Efemeros in June. Then it's time for planning the convention combo of Ropecon/Gencon in terms of demonstrations and other programming. After that, conventions and then I'm probably dead from exhaustion. Good times.

Pessoal da Pixelate criou uma série com 4 jogos Flash que abordam o tema de criação de jogos de uma forma simpática e divertida que qualquer um pode entender.

Confiram o primeiro episódio na página oficial.

...or anyone else, really.

Folks from Pixelate created a series with 4 Flash games which talks about game creation in a clear, sympathetic and fun way.

Check the first episode on the official page.

Nowadays, game development is a collaborative process.  Large games need teams of specialized workers. As we discussed in our SXSW Interactive session, story design shouldn't be separated from the other disciplines.  Story can go beyond 'just the words.'  Instead, a dedicated narrative designer working with programmers, artists, and sound designers will know how to convey story in an interactive experience.  To do this well, a narrative designer should be considered part of a multidisciplinary team.

For more on this topic, please read the article on Gamasutra - "Towards More Meaningful Games: A Multidisciplinary Approach."

Found this blog entry useful? Click here to e-mail it to someone!

Nobody?  Not one person?  Aww, c'mon.

There will be more of these sorts of exercises to come: things that don't apply theory or technique but rather call on a more creative and expressive skill set.  Theory is excellent, but being able to apply that theory to what you're trying to express in layman's terms is going to help you communicate your ideas on a regular basis.

So, what do we do when there are no user comments?  We roll up our sleeves and get down to business.

It should be noted that Capcom has said Sheva will be AI controlled when not playing with another person, so while they will not need levels that can be finished by one player alone, this was still taken into consideration for the exercise.

Here's my level description:

The players are in a shanty town; buildings are two stories max.  The streets are narrow and crowded with boxes, with lots of small, intersecting streets.  It is made clear through rubble and locked doors which way the players must advance.

The two players get an objective: make for the center of town, securing buildings on the way.  The players must storm the buildings as they progress, either splitting up or attacking one building at a time together.  Chris can use a co-op move to allow Sheva to vault to the second floor of a building while he comes in the front door.

As the players near the center of town, enemies will attack from behind on the streets as well, eventually pushing them into the center of town.  Once there, players encounter a boss (lots of HP, deadly melee) and waves of normal enemies, some with guns.  One of the players can man a gun turret near the middle of the combat area, while the other player works to keep enemies off the gunner's back, especially the boss.

PROS: This is going to be subject to some bias, but bear with me.

First of all, notice the short sentences -- when describing something like a game level to a colleague, the last thing you want to do is start rambling or going on about something unimportant.  Be terse, and be precise, especially since that will spur people to contribute to your idea with their own ideas.

All major asset considerations are mentioned as well as the basic level construction: streets are narrow and full of meshes, impassible terrain is handled with rubble and locked doors, a turret gun will have to be made, a boss will have to be made if that type doesn't exist already, and a co-op move might need to be created.  While none of this was specifically listed, this is what professionals are going to be picking out of your speech or writing and it's important to deliver all of that clearly and in context.

The general strategies for level completion are described, so people can visualize how they would get through the level themselves.  The building entries and boss battle can also be completed without the second player.

CONS: I can't criticize myself.  You guys tell me what would improve this level.

So how do you go about making a BBG that is co-op friendly?  Co-op in the sense that my actions help you, and vice-versa.  Not in the sense of 'hey we're both online at the same time, I guess we must be playing together'.

I really like how Utopia handles co-op.  Essentially, you've got a group of players who are part of a single Kingdom.  They get mutual benefits if they're all doing well, and they get mutual penalties if they're all doing poorly.  Each Kingdom has a private forum, so communication is really easy.

My thought, for co-op in a browser based RPG in the more traditional sense of RPG, is to allow players (who each control a party of characters) to group up and give each others' parties certain benefits.  All positive.  No negative.  Encourage grouping.  What kind of benefits?  I have a few in mind.

Experience.  One of the biggest benefits of belonging to a group (which I shall henceforth refer to as a Raid) is that everybody gets a bonus to the experience they gain.  Maybe something like +10% for each party in the Raid, up to 50%.  This bonus applies only to the experience being gained by your own party.  So if I would have normally gained 100 exp for an encounter, I'm getting 150 instead.  If my buddy gets 1,000 exp, I don't necessarily get any of it.  Unless...

Bonus Experience.  This is where I start to care if my buddy is 'pulling his weight'.  In addition to, or instead of, getting extra experience myself when grouped, when my Raid-mates get experience, I also gain experience.  I imagine that the bonus exp would be normalized, so that I couldn't form a Raid with someone of a ridiculously high level and gain multiple levels at once.  The exp bonus would be based on some kind of 'con' system, where the bonus is based on an appropriate reward for my own level, rather than my buddy's.  This works both ways, though.  As a high level party, I could Raid with a low-level party and get level-appropriate exp bonuses from their exploits.

Buffs.  Some characters will grant party-wide buffs.  These buffs could apply to Raid members' parties as well.  It would probably be a good idea if these were 'normalized' at least somewhat for parties as well.  I suppose that it could be as simple as making the buffs scale using percentages rather than flat values, but that opens up another can of worms.  I guess it's a toss-up over whether to offer incentives for Raids of even-leveled parties or allow high- and low-level parties to Raid together.

These bonuses can also scale depending on how far apart physically the parties are, or something to that effect.  There has to be some kind of encouragement to Raid with parties around your own level, that are working on similar content.  Or does there?  Maybe I'm not totally convinced.

The other method of co-op play involves having monsters or events that are so monumental that they take multiple encounters from multiple players to defeat.  Rather than a single encounter, it's more like a campaign, I guess.  For campaigns, there's the issue of who gets the loot...  Killing blow is a terrible way of determining looting rights in a situation like this.  Maybe each successful encounter for the campaign drops some kind of tokens or something, which can be used like currency to purchase rewards.

All of the following best practices are more or less extracted from Damion Schubert's latest presentation on writing design documents, and from my own experience and schooling.  You can find the presentation here.

Hit the jump for a delicious wall of text.

--------------------------------Overview --------------------------------

What will be covered:

Getting Started

Functionality

Form

The Process

Scrum and Design Documents

--------------------------------Preface--------------------------------

The most important point to make is that as a designer, you will always be learning how to write a good design document.  Different studios and different games call for different requirements, and so standardization is difficult, and can even be damaging (ie. formulaic games would be produced).

Another excellent point Schubert establishes early on is that common complaints about design documentation are more or less tied to how you, or the designers that team has worked with in the past, have constructed their documents.  If someone is telling you that design documents are a waste of time, it's because they've been exposed to poorly constructed documents.  Hopefully they weren't yours.

Important to note is the distinction between a Systems Design Document and other overview-type documents.  That alone should be something you actively think about while formatting your document: you are detailing how a system functions, and in doing so how it will be built.  A system is a number of things coming together to form something complex; make sure the document supports that cohesion.  Documents I have written personally tend to have story sections to keep team members on the same page thematically, but I admit it would be better to contain that in its own document and reserve the actual design document for detailing the game system.

--------------------------------Getting Started--------------------------------

Don't start creating the document in isolation.  Even if you are 'the doc guy' your skills are being exemplified by how usable, concise, and detailed the documentation is -- it does not mean you alone are designing the game.  This is a more applicable warning to students than professionals, as it can be easy to start thinking you are the one responsible for writing the document in isolation.

Decide on the goals of the game systems so the document has a clear beginning and ending in terms of what it details.  Schubert notes that a design document could probably go on forever, since different systems will inevitably touch and influence each other.  That much detail should be avoided, as it's not particularly useful but can clutter the document and confuse everyone.

And of course, look at games that are similar to yours and see what you can borrow or use as a guideline.  If your game is a shooter, you're hurting yourself by not looking at what the best shooters are doing; see how they did something and then determine how you are going to do it or what you will be changing.

Brainstorm, etc.

Now, this is especially vital if your intention is to create a true 'living document' that is going to play nice with an iterative design process: the design document should start out simple, outlining what is essentially a prototype of the intended final product.  Test that build, get feedback, then iterate and expand the complexity of the document.  This is the major failing of any sort of document writing class -- you can teach anyone to construct a document that can be used as a blueprint to construct their dream game, but you can't teach iterative development and the documentation that entails outside of making a game.  So in practice, build the complexity of the system as the actual game build grows.

Think of cellular automata; complex things are defined by simple instructions that multiply to create complexity.  Creating complexity from the outset -- creating a blueprint -- is going to hurt this process, doesn't make sense for iterative development, and is sadly what I was taught at first.

And remember, the programmers are the ones building the game system you're writing.  Make friends with them.  Ask them what they want and need from the document.

And lastly, 'kill your babies'.  It's rare for a design to maintain itself in its entirety through an iterative development cycle, so be prepared to see your favourite little features mutate or dissapear.  And, just like any sort of writing, if you aren't prepared to let someone read your document, then you know there is something wrong with it and "it is probably either too complex or too weird".

--------------------------------Functionality--------------------------------

Fewer pages are better than more pages.  A big document is not the goal here.  The longer the document is, the more ends of different systems meet, and the more contradictory your document will become.  Or, it just means you're not being concise enough.  Be concise.

Schubert has some great examples of the following starting on slide 26 of his presentation:

Create modular sections in your document.  If you have a section that contains all of the enemies in your game and another section that contains all of the weapons, keep them separate.  When describing an enemy and the weapon he uses, do not copy and paste from the weapon section, reference back to it with a hyperlink.  Basically, try not to copy and paste information, be referential.

Break things up into phases and prioritize.  What does this mean?  Firstly, it does not mean 'describe what you can do conservatively, then describe what you could do with more time'.  Outline what functionality a feature needs to have for the prototype build; what functionality it needs to work correctly; what functionality it needs to have when the game ships; what could be done post-launch (patch, DLC, etc); and what could be done if you had tonnes of money or extra time.  The important thing to take away here is that something might get cut due to costs/development time, and you need to be able to point and say 'this won't work if it's not at this level'.

Illustration.  This doesn't mean you have to include pictures everywhere, but pictures help.  For example, screenshots of similar games so that people can get a feel for what you're shooting for.  Diagrams and flowcharts can accomplish this as well, in different situations.  But most importantly, remember that you can illustrate something with text, Schubert calls it 'example text'.  If you feel that a piece of technical writing requires a summation of some kind you can write a short blurb from the user's perspective: walk the reader through what someone would do if they spent a minute with your inventory system, etc.

Don't tell others how to do their jobs.  This comes into effect with user interfaces that are going to be displaying some of the functionality or user feedback of the game system.  Schubert's point here is likened to how humans perceive abstract representations as compared to a realistically rendered representation.  If someone sees a rudimentary smiley face they're going to project their own viewpoint onto it: basically, if you tell someone how to do something then you've stunted their creative process.  This is a bit tricky since everyone works differently.  For instance, when I design a user interface I'll often tie the art style to the functionality: if the interface is supposed to be a dirty martian control panel, then I'm going to go into Photoshop and create a control panel.  I don't see anything wrong with this as long as you make sure you're not stepping on anyone's toes.  In such an instance, talk to the artist who will be working on the UI before you go ahead with it.  Make sure he understands why your dirty designer art exists on the wireframe mockup, and that he is to use it only as a springboard for his own artwork to complement the functionality.

So, if you can, describe the functionality and let the artist interpet the aesthetic qualities that should work with it.

Capture your reasoning.  Again, build your document to be modular and compartmentalize things.  State things rather than explain things.  If anyone needs an explanation, direct them to a Frequently Asked Questions section.

--------------------------------Form--------------------------------

Form, as in external appearance.  Humans are visual creatures, and generalities that you might not consider will have an effect on them.

For instance, you'll find on slides 46 and 47 of Schubert's presentation that he speaks about separating code from content.  When he says code he is talking about functionality: what do the programmers need to do, what are the code requirements to make that feature work.  He takes a large bullet point list and distills it into two levels of functionality -- basic and advanced -- written in text, with the corresponding content that that functionality requires boxed up in a neat little chart underneath.  Programmers are going to be able to dechiper what work they need to do out of that much better than they would with a bullet point list.

Make sure navigation is easy. If your document has been designed modularly this is no problem.  Include a table of contents.

Find a format and be persistent, but don't be afraid to break it.  People like things that look 'professional', and trust it more.

Be clear.  If you're going to be using jargon, don't even assume that everyone reading your document will know what it means. Establish its meaning clearly if you must use it, but try to simplify terms.  Schubert even suggests including a glossary.

Back to being referential.  Don't let your document be redundant, as it can cause problems when updating.  For instance, don't copy and paste information from another document as you then have to update two instances later (and may make a mistake or miss updating something), but rather reference the other document with a link.

No weak language. The use of phases and prioritizing should eliminate the use of words like "if, when, maybe, perhaps" etc.  Speak in absolutes.  A system is designed, and a design is concrete.  It may change later, but at the moment of writing that does not matter.

--------------------------------The Process--------------------------------

Writing a game design document is not something to be practiced in isolation, so make sure you establish what you need in that first meeting.  What are the team goals for the project, what are the boundaries the team will be working within -- how expansive and involved is this game system.

Using phases, concentrate on the phase at hand.  Don't concern yourself too much with the next phase of functionality.  The requirements for the next phase could change when you're done designing and locking down the current phase.

Consult slide 61 of Schubert's presentation for how a design document can "survive contact with the enemy".

Have an approval process for the design document.  Lead Designer --> Design Team --> Senior Leads/Cross-Team.

Establish a way to visually track the approval process.  Schubert reccommends, on slide 63, using post-it notes on a whiteboard or something similar.

Have a change process.  Things will change, so plan how you will handle those changes.  Have someone act as an arbiter, such as a lead designer, or leave it up to some sort of team approval -- this really depends on the studio.  Valve's change process is no doubt quite different from id's change process.

Make it searchable -- this ties back to choosing a wiki format.

Remember that this is a business and be ready for your producers to tell you what you can never show.

'Audit' the process.  Make sure the team is comfortable operating within the bounds you have established.

------------------------Scrum and Design Documents------------------------

Read slide 71 and on for Schubert's more in-depth comparison.

He suggests concentrating your documentation on user stories.  These are short function requirements written in plain english.  This use of user stories is still more involved than how they generally function in other areas of software development, as Schubert creates a user story with one requirement, and several sub-requirements housed within it.

Keep in mind that when you are constructing a user story you are creating tangible work for coders.  You need to be able to estimate how much coding time your requirements are going to take -- for one user story operating with Scrum, it needs to be under one week.  Schubert gives some guidelines on slide 74.

La piratería de videojuegos: ¿cáncer a extirpar u oportunidad comercial?

Don't get lost in the Lost Garden of Game Design

Una librería de efectos sonoros exclusivamente para videojuegos (comercial)

Una interesante propuesta de laboratorio multimedia usando wiimotes

10 problemas en metodología scrum

When there's only one candidate there's only one choice

Chuck Norris: Bring on the Pain

De los gamers estadounidenses: el 40% son mujeres, la edad promedio es 35 y el 25% son mayores de 50