Jumping in the bandwagon

September 23, 2006 by Abalieno | Leave a comment

Idiots repeat mistakes.

Not the first time I underline this.

Magnus Bergsson: We will continue developing EVE. We will continue until people stop playing it. That’s basically our commitment to EVE. At the same time I can tell you that CCP is not going to be a single game company. We will have a seperate team working on any other titles that we will be… uh, maybe we are actually working on one right now. Who knows.

I see.

I guess it’s why Kali was delayed once again.

“We will continue until people stop playing it”. That’s the EXACT same type of commitment EA had with Ultima Online, Mythic with DAoC and SOE with Everquest.

They all used the exact same words.

“People playing” DEPEND on the commitment. Not the other way around. FIRST you put there the commitment, THEN people come to play if they decide it’s enough.

If people stop playing it’s because you are accountable. If that was the commitment of CCP with Eve, then the subscribers would have never moved from the disastrous launch of the game. If that’s your commitment today, you suck.

The Brother from Another Planet

September 20, 2006 by Abalieno | 3 Comments

Once upon a time I was a child.

Those in the pictures aren’t “toys” but just leftovers of the parquet of the upper floor of this house. After the parquet was finished there were thousands left and they became my favourite toy. One afternoon my parents left me for a few hours to go to a school meeting (I was a very, very quiet kid) and when they returned the floor was FILLED with those kinds of “drawings”. I was so absorbed and concentrated playing with those that it looked like if I was in some sort of “trance”, breathing roughly but calmly.

Sadly I cannot find the pictures where I was playing with the colored blocks that came in various shapes (cilinders, pyramids, arcs and so on..), with those I used to make “vertical” compositions and temple-like buildings. It was tricky because I had to learn balance as a block placed wrongly could have triggered a chain effect and destroy everything.

I feel like I haven’t done anything good since then ;p

P.S.
“The Brother from Another Planet” is the title of a wonderful movie of an independent USA director.

Someone does it constructively

September 20, 2006 by Abalieno | Leave a comment

Nerfbat leaves Sony:

I’ve decided that if I’m going to make a leap of faith of any kind in my life, I better do it while I’m still young.

Good luck, of course.

Post Scriptum

September 18, 2006 by Abalieno | 12 Comments

I didn’t reply to the (kind) words Raph wrote or the (kind) forum thread on Q23 because I decided to not read anything for a few days. If you see me writing now it’s not because I changed my decision but only because I want to make some precisations as everyone that commented was wondering what I was trying to achieve with this site or the real reason why I decided to stop.

So I’ll try to explain as clearly and succinctly as I can:

The purpose of this site: The purpose of this site was to be a “surrogate”. A ladder to watch the stars. I didn’t expect to get a job in the game industry by writing here (come ooon). I was writing here because I KNEW I wouldn’t have an occasion to get a job in the game industry. Writing was a way to get as close as possible to what I liked and that was out of reach. Confrontate and all the rest.

This site didn’t have a “goal” to reach. I didn’t “quit” because I didn’t get as many readers as I originally hoped or because I wasn’t influencing game design enough. Nor because I wanted to replicate what Lum did. I don’t pretend to be on the same league. This site was a playground and an archive. A memory. It was simply a bag where I put thoughts. As a bag, it was just a container and didn’t have another goal or purpose. Just that.

The reason why I’m done: the reason why I’m done isn’t because this site had a goal that I wasn’t able to reach, nor because I cannot pay the hosting fees. The reason is entirely external to the site and is about myself. Writing about mmorpgs completely absorbed me and I loved it. I wasn’t bored doing that, I wanted to do it MORE. Dedicating it more time without feeling bad.

I simply reached a point where I wanted to justify what I’m doing. Is that odd? Justify that dedication. Find a sense so that I didn’t feel like wasting time. Find a legitimation. But I knew that I didn’t have an option, so I felt like being pulled into two opposite directions, and I broke there.

I’m broken.

So. Thanks everyone for the comments.

There’s a (now old) thread on Q23 where I wrote some more. The thread is also interesting for the discussion beside my specific case.

I think that within five years, Abalieno will be able to make his dream come true. By himself, mostly.

That’s not a dream, it’s a nightmare. My dream is to work with other people where I’m just one of many and make games for other people. Not doing a game on my own and where I’m going to be the only player.

Dead end.

September 11, 2006 by Abalieno | Leave a comment

So. This is supposed to be my last post. It’s not the first time I decide to “quit” but I think this time it won’t be undone.

My ticket expired. I had originally planned to run this site for about a year, then close the chapter, draw my own conclusions and figure out what I had left in my hands. Then some situations changed and I gave myself another one. The year is over and I’m already beyond that limit, because I was planning to close the site before the end of July, so that I had the rest of the summer to think more about it.

It’s not even the first time I put everything to waste.

Today is my birthday and I thought it was a good occasion to end my biggest dream with it. My birthdays have never felt particularly joyful or positive as I always felt more the weight of what I haven’t done than what I have done. And what I have to do and that I’m not able to. Now I’m not as young and the gap and the weight can just increase exponentially from year to year, so I didn’t mind to add a reason to that bad feel that I was expecting anyway.

What I don’t want to do with this site is the rare update, the slow down, the two-months leave. No, I prefer to put a definite end and don’t turn back to see. When I do something I dedicate myself as much as I can to it, without compromises. Moreover, I didn’t have another possibility since I would have never slowed down without a definitive choice. The more I get into things, the more I get absorbed. And I love it. As long as I can afford it. But I was an anomaly.

I did this as long as I could afford it. Probably even more than I could afford. So I knew that I was running out of time, I know that I was running already PAST of what I should have done. It was a stretch because I was chasing what I wanted instead of accepting to have my feet nailed on the ground.

Yes, I chase dreams and I’m proud of it.

See, the things I expect aren’t the things I wish. Systematically the things I expect happen, while the things I wish don’t. That’s also the margin between this site (I’m a designer!) and the real world (I’m a jerk!). This site existed on that gap. On air.

Like a walk in the countryside. “Let’s pretend that things aren’t as they really are.” Let’s believe that, at least for a while. This site was just that: a “at least for a while”. And then: “Just another minute, please…”

A midsummer night’s dream.

Now I’m done, whohoo! I’m so addicted that I’ll continue to write and take notes, even if it has no purpose. At least to mitigate the sense of loss. I don’t know how I’ll react because that’s really what I want to do. Get absorbed. Now I have to tell my brain “it’s over”. Don’t think about it. Don’t go that way. Dead end.

I was one of those who play games almost exclusively to analyze things, figure out what works, why it works, find sources of inspiration. I love that, it’s all I love. I’m going to close the site because I have to cut away all that to not lose myself into it. It’s poison. Go away.

It will be harder for me than you can imagine.

I’m sure that there will be better games, and that there would so much to talk about. People will do that in my place. Just don’t expect me to agree with them :)

At the end that’s what I wanted more. That we were “there” and all contributed to the same thing. The sense of participation, instead of each one doing his own thing, closed in his own house. I always tried to go out and “reach”. It’s also not something that I can do well as I’m not the charismatic type, but I tried.

I also see myself as quite miserable. I’m not proud of anything at all. If it’s an end, it’s an end in shame for me. In one of my notes I wrote: “I won’t be able to explain my parents what games are, because I just wasted time. And when people will ask me what I did, I’ll just sit there and stare at them blankly”. I do feel a sense of failure.

I chased a dream, but a dream that cannot be told. In James Joyce’s “Dubliners” there’s a story called “Two Gallants”. My hands are empty.

The reason why I decided to stop writing completely is because this site was feeding that interest. And it grew, and then grew more. And now I have to choke it. Forget about it. Off limits. What are the alternatives? I resisted till I could, fought my small, pointless battle. With no redemption at the end.

My biggest dream was to be part of things. Not because I thought of myself as the indispensable, unique genius, but just because I love those things and I wanted to be “there”. Ready for anything. No matter what the conditions were. I tried to adapt myself the best I could, do everything the best I could. And then more, because it is never enough. Not even close to being enough. But at the end I was here writing on a blog, it was the best possibility I had to get as close I could to what I loved (the ladder to see the stars). I somewhat achieved much more than what I originally thought. But this is of no use, nor satisfaction. It lead to a good amount of frustration, but that was expected, so I was prepared.

I’m quite the anomaly if you think that I had to go even against the language barrier and everything. I needed a fair amount of “arrogance” even to pretend to do what I did. Trying to find a space among people that I absolutely didn’t belong to. Raising my hand knowing that I didn’t have any right to speak and noone would care about what I had to say. I think noone could have been more out of place than me, but I just felt too much that push. Finding my own way, and then continue from there. Try to not delude. Try to get better, dedication. Vocation.

But it only works after you find a breach. I cannot cultivate something if I just cannot be part of it. It just too frustrating. Sometimes I used “we”. But there’s no “we”. There’s all of you, and me. I’m out.

At the end I could stay suspended on air only for so long, like Wile E. Coyote, no matter how much I want something. Or I was able to cross the line, or I should have gone back. A matter of “opportunities”. Real life is only a matter of opportunities, not dreams. The two rarely meet each other, and in general people put their dreams close to the opportunities.

So good luck to everyone who has that “privilege” of being there. I will always look at you with envy ;p

I have a HUGE respect and esteem for you, in particular for those few who participated in the “circulation of ideas”. You know who you are. It didn’t appear so just because I needed that arrogance to get the right to speak and not feel intimidated. And when I criticized it was because I knew you had big shoulders.

“The ladder to see the stars”. That’s an appropriate way to describe how I felt this site. It is just absurd. If you climb a ladder you don’t see the stars any better. But it was my only opportunity to be there.

I’m not going to open another site, I’m not going to write for someone else and I’m not going to vanish only to reappear under a new identity. You can get a sigh of relief :) No more bitching from me, no more dev-bashing, no more accuses, no more problems. No more broken english. I’m packing up my things and leaving you alone, at last.

This site should remain online, if things don’t change. So everything should continue to work, just without me posting what I write. It’s time for me to shut up, I don’t think I have anymore the right to say anything. I don’t feel anymore that right. The anomaly is resolved.

I’ll leave again as I arrived, with no friends nor merit.

One promise: I’ll remember all of you for much longer than you’ll remember me and this site.

“At three we run into opposite directions!”

“One!… Two!…”

—
Post Scriptum

So I’ll try to explain as clearly and succinctly as I can:

I’m broken.

So. Thanks everyone for the comments, but they cannot help.

There’s a (now old) thread on Q23 where I wrote some more. The thread is also interesting for the discussion beside my specific case.

I think that within five years, Abalieno will be able to make his dream come true. By himself, mostly.

EQ2’s “Echoes of Faydwer” not so bad bundle

September 11, 2006 by Abalieno | 21 Comments

I ranted a lot about the price and content of the upcoming EQ2’s expansion, but at least I have also something positive to report:

The retail box for EoF will contain the base game as well as both DoF and KoS.

Well done.

This is the sort of thing I think is more reasonable and that I suggested for years. Put on the shelves a complete product so that new players won’t be turned off by a bunch of purchases one stacked on top of the other to get the complete version of the game.

Seen from this perspective the $10 price raise for this expansion (for a total of $40) is more justified for the full game, even if I think the three “adventure packs” still need to be bought separately. I hope there’s a complete and updated paper manual in the box, even if this time I’m going with a digital download, myself.

It would be nice if the veteran players who have already base game + DoF + AoS could get a $10 discount and get the new expansion at the price of the previous ones.

Simulation versus Stagecraft

September 11, 2006 by Abalieno | Leave a comment

An excerpt from an interview and an occasion to save old comments:

Yoru: Right, it’s uh… the buzzword was.. (taps pen) Systemic game design.

Raph: Right, you can poke and prod it and players can have an impact and see it. Statically created content, this is why the debate in the industry is simulation versus stagecraft.

Yoru: Disposable content.

Raph: Stagecraft, yeah, it’s consumable content.

This stuff rubs me the right way. But I also think that systemic game design isn’t the same of procedural or generated content. Yes, they may work together, but they aren’t the same thing.

I say this because I’m ALL for systemic game design. It has been one main concept in all the things I write about and my design style always pivots areound a systemic point of view.

I like control in game design. PvP is essentially systemic game design. It isn’t procedural or generated, and for sure it isn’t disposable. PvP is repetable and it works ONLY when what happens was already well thought and calibrated by a game designer. Or there’s *absolute control* or there’s just an exploit that you have to patch. No control = bad.

This doesn’t mean that PvP is fixed, static or predictable. You provide the players the elements that work together, that affect each other. Is “Chess” fixed, static or predictable? I think not. But you don’t invent rules while you play. You just have control on fewer elements that are pre-designed to work together. Then you can create tactical situations and infinite variations.

Reactive content, but, again, not procedural and not generated.

(btw, why Raph knows always the one word that summarizes pages and pages of concepts? It’s incredible)

Some comments (on Brokentoys, here and my notes file):

—
In a systemic model:
– The players are brought together. The model is represented as a circumference, where the players/dots create groups or “cells” and move within while bouncing one against the other (creating alliances, conflicts, politics etc..). The space belongs to them (known) and is “managed”.

In a linear model:
– The players are spread apart. The model is represented as a vector, where the players are pointed toward an obligatory direction and have a set position that “qualifies” them toward the other players. The space is external, alien (unknown) and only conquered and progressively consumed.

In a systemic model every element has a precise function and is then linked with other elements in a complex relationship. This means that the function is always preserved. In a linear model, instead, the idea of progress means that you leave things behind. You use up. The function of an element is just about leading you to the next (consumable content).

—
My personal choice would be about players’ interaction and “structures”. So PvP systems and rules more than artificial worlds responding to mathematical, sophisticated algorithms.

The point against ecologic systems is that they are cool ideas™. But they serve very little purpose if not as an academic experiement. What’s their role in the game? It looks like design experimentation just for the sake of it and not because it answers to a real need of a game.

In the past I also imagined quite complex herbalism systems. But just to “fake” an ecology with those patterns that I think are fun to play and help the immersion, not to build an autonomous system following obscure routines hidden to the player.

(on the choice/selection of elements)

—
Herbalism system, simulate the growth of plants, but without animals coming and eating them. Because that’s not anymore the player playing. It’s the system playing, while the player is a spectator.

(see Ubiq’s “system design that is more interesting to watch than to play”)

—
It’s the system that plays behind that I see as a sophistication. Where the player isn’t a player but just a spectator. Like watching a game of “Life”.

Your example about PvP would work if you started to design each tactical element carefully. So it would be more about enabling those patterns and faking them more than “automating” them.

It’s like “chess”, you can have some sort of emergent situations coming out of the game, but the elements into play must be known and strictly defined. So in a PvP game you need a strict control on what comes into play, then you can let the players move the pieces and create situations.

The “control” is always in the hands of the designer, sometimes passed to the players, but never directly to the system itself.

The idea I criticize in the ecologic system is that it wants to be closed and autonomous. Whether the players are there or not, it continues to move on following its rules. This specific pattern, in a game, can work only if the players are the manipulators (god game) and not the manipulated. It’s a matter of “awareness”.

At the end in a simulation (and I’m pro simulations since they help the immersion) you are forced to choose the elements that are useful and that you are going to add, and those that are superfluous. I see this argument from this perspective.

In my herbalism system I imagined growth cycles, seasons and climates, but I didn’t think about critters coming and eating the plants to start a food chain. The reason is that the few elements I added were used by the players and contributed with some concrete complexity, while a food chain would be not anymore about the player playing, but about the system playing itself. With the player as a spectator.

It reminds me that article about the simulated world in Second Life. That’s a place you visit. It’s not a place where you stay and play.

Which you also defined as “cool™” right in the title.

Concluding, what I criticize is not the strive for simulations, realism and immersion. But considering that approach as a better way to generate worlds passively.

And in PvP you need immobility. You can have unexpected situations coming out of a proper use of the pieces, but you cannot have new pieces showing up and coming into play.

So let’s revert the design approach: let’s imagine what are the patterns that are interesting and then think how implement them, instead of implementing an automated system and then think which interesting patterns it could provide.

On immersion and consistency

September 10, 2006 by Abalieno | 1 Comment

Some notes I have taken and that I don’t have time to put into something more elaborate. They are already clear anyway.

—
Immersion. Immersive is the game that behaves consistently (rules, logic, representation).

Immersive isn’t the game with pretty graphic.

Immersion is seeing a tree. The immersion breaks if you can walk through the tree.

Immersive is the game that flows so consistently that you can roleplay into it with minimum effort.

Immesive is Dwarf Fortress. It’s because it tells amazing stories that follow a consistent logic.

It isn’t immersive exploiting enemy AI in Oblivion.

EQ2’s voiceovers add to the immersion as long they sound appropriate. If they aren’t they damage the immersion more than if the NPCs spoke just through text.

WoW tends to be more immersive than EQ2 because even if its style is less realistic, it is still more polished and consistent overall.

Graphic is immersive as long it appears consistent. “Realism” isn’t a requirement for the immersion as fantasy worlds are far from realistic and, still, can be extremely immersive.

Consistence between the elements represented is what matters more. The selection/choice of which elements to represent is fundamental in game design.

On “Classes vs. Skills”

September 10, 2006 by Abalieno | 2 Comments

From Psychochild’s blog:

The challenge is this: Point out an advantage of either a class-based or skill-based system that hasn’t been discussed to death yet. Or, if you’re feeling bold, describe a system that goes beyond either of these systems.

I really wanted to contribute to that discussion with something worthwhile as I have some ideas but then I didn’t find the time and only scribbled down some notes.

As I wrote in the first comment on Ubiq’s blog I mostly agreed with him and for my “dream mmorpg” I was planning an hybrid with skill-based advancement but within a class system, no levels and with class adaptability.

Adaptability is particularly important. Similarly to Final Fantasy XI, you would be able to switch between “roles” to level and use separately (permeable barriers). The goal is to let the player adapt his character to a group, bypassing class requirements and “mechanics of exclusions” that often force certain classes in perma-LFG.

So your class won’t preclude you to take an offensive, or defensive, or support role (see Raph’s analogies). You would be able to switch between those depending on the group’s needs, while also requiring them to be “leveled” separatedly (which broadens the character progression without the negative effects of the “stacking”). You could ideally switch from “battle” to “mage”, but without the overpowered “battlemage” option.

(The original idea was explained better here and here.)

Another basic point is to enclose skills into “spheres” or skill groups. These would correspond to different “kinds” of gameplay you support, so that, for example, trading and crafting would go in their own sphere, with their own independent pool of points. The important part is that all player and all classes have access to all those spheres (then it’s their choice to spend time into them or ignore them). This was the main critics I had about SWG. If there’s crafting and combat then ALL players need to be able to craft and combat. And NOT a class for combat and one for craft. These pools will then level separatedly one from the other (or have separate caps).

This is part of the “gated content” concept, as the idea of parallel progress and content. Opposed to linear, selective or exclusive content. All kinds of different activities and playstyles should be made available as “parallel” content. Without classes that lock out of parts of the game. And without an “endgame” to reach later on that dramatically changes the way you play.

Everything the game has to offer should be available without requiring an exclusive choice from the player, and without requiring to be “reached” (the level 50 RvR in DAoC, raid content in EQ and WoW). Which also doesn’t mean that all the game world is completely open without requiring any effort (see “threshold advancement” in Ubiq’s speech).

Then within each sphere you would need a certain amount of “templating”, so that not every player can do everything and be alike. With the possibility to gain points to lose them (?!). I mean that instead of fixed templates that you are stuck with (see what I wrote here below about “permeable barriers”) the idea would be to use a system similar to Ultima Online where you can let skills decay so that you can specialize in something else if you want to experiment something different.

An hybrid system similar to what I have described would retain the advantages of classes that Raph pointed out as well (but not completely) the advantages of a skill-based system. And the concept of class adaptation and role switch would also address the other quirks about the “balance” (and “versatility”, which is a great strength in the eye of the players).

But this isn’t enough. The truth is that I still haven’t found a solution that satisfies me. For example I like both passive and active systems. A passive system is one where you go adventuring and while you do that you see skills improving in the background (this happens even in WoW, to a limited extent). I love that kind of feeling of accomplishment, so it’s something that I don’t want to lose. At the same time I like an active system where it’s the player to “manage” his character in detail, so with some control. This is why I’m still looking for a solution that joins those two together. Still a work in progress.

Originally the system I wanted was inspired by the pen&paper Stormbringer (which is also the inspiration for the setting). You go around adventuring but only if you achieve a particular objective you have an occasion to improve (goal-driven progress). Grinding monsters just wouldn’t work if not in the case it was part of a quest. When the achievement was reached then the player had the possibility to rest. The system would flag automatically all the skills that were used along the way. The player would then choose between the skills flagged to decide which one to improve (he could have used ten skills, but he could have only a couple of attempts to “allocate”). Then, the server rolls dices for each “attempt” and tells the player if those attempts were successful or not.

I discared that system for many reasons. One was that the achievements were meant to be not repetable, but this would have turned the game in some sort of “badge collecting” that I just didn’t like (from grinding mobs to grinding quests, it’s better, but a dream mmorpg should aspire at more). Another was that the “server rolls” would have been random and just too frustrating to watch. And another again was that it required either too much micromanagement (in the case you had to do that frequently) or not enough (in the case you made the achievements too spaced out). It was just a system weak on “fun”. It wouldn’t work. I needed something else.

Again, I still haven’t found a solution, but at least I know more or less where to search one. I want one that is more automated, more in the background. And, in particular, I want one where the skills improvements are gradual and better paced. It would be better also if the improvements arrive in a less predictable way. If you transform experience points in skill points (as in Warhammer), then you know exactly when you are going “ding” the next skill level. While I would like a less predictable system where the “ding” is less expected and awaited. So passive and active as two aspects that I want to join somehow.

There are basically a bunch of goals that I want to reach, but I still need to find the right combination of the puzzle so that they all match together:

– No levels, more realistic progression
– Percent skills, because they are familiar at least as much as levels (see also the principle of “transparent mechanics”)
– Different skill groups so that the player doesn’t gimp the charater by selecting skills that take away points from combat
– “Passive” skill-ups through server checks
– “Active” character management for the player (control, allocation)
– Customization
– Adaptability (possibility to switch classes/roles to adapt to a group, instead of being excluded or included on requirements)

One possible solution that I’m considering is this one:

– Capped spheres/skillgroups, so that the player can customize and “template” each while still having access to the different parts of the game.
– Use-based, percent skills (server checks in the background) which each its own rules
– A system with special abilities on top, to unblock/enable through questing or PvP

Rough example: your “sword” skill % will be involved in to-hit rolls. But you would need PvP achievements or questing if you want to buy special attacks. Basically each special skill would have a requirement of base skill, but the base skill would be independent from the special one. An “eviscerate” special attack could require 70% in axes, swords or whatever. The special attack would need to be unblocked through achievements, while the percent base skills through use.

That’s where the “dream game” sits at the moment, even if I’m still not completely satisfied. You may even say it doesn’t sound too far away from WoW if you think at the skill progression as a level progression, but there are still some core differences that I see as improvements:

– Class adaptability and balance (solo/groups)
– Narrower, more realistic power growth
– Percent-based mechanics, transparent and easy to familiarize with
– Less linear growth and progression (as you pick up the skills to use and improve)
– Different spheres/skillgroups to explore that would open the game toward aspects that aren’t just focused on combat

Instead I just cannot understand this (from Raph):

(pro-skills)
And really, the fact that there can be multiple reasons to play is at the heart of it. This is why class-based systems have real trouble absorbing crafting, for example, and we often see the notion of having a separate parallel class system for crafting alongside the combat classes. It’s like asking a hockey team to also do embroidery during the match.

I have real trouble grasping that concept. I can understand having “multiple reasons to play” if I can access different parts of the game. But if those parts are accessible only through an exclusive choice (like a crafting class OR a combat class) how this brings to “multiple reasons to play”? The game forces you to select ONE, where it could have offered instead those reasons to play one by the other.

Take together “more than one thing to do” with “multiple reasons to play”. How you can achieve the latter if you can only pick one between the things that the game can offer? What’s the advantage of a system that precludes large amounts of content to be experienced?

I just cannot get it. Maybe he’ll explain that more.

About the rest of the discussion that spawned multiple blogs, this is a note I had taken:

—
Secondly, a skill based system kills “lesser skills” and “sidetracks”. You are encouraged to “maximize” what you have, so you are almost forced to leave behind some fun possibilities just because they don’t fit the “template”. Instead of taking advantage of the diversity of many skills and the freedom you are supposed to have, concretely only the opposite happens. You finish to be stuck in a template and locked out of activities that would be fun, but that would be detrimental for your character efficiency.

A cesspit.

Running with no ads since 2004