The Future of RTS

My favorite genre is Real Time Strategy Games, a field where user generated content is already employed quite liberally. As we discussed in class balance issues have arisen in RTS content, from Warcraft II's lack of random player placement on custom maps, and has been resolved... mostly, in more recent games such as Starcraft and Warcraft III. So where does user generated content go from here? With the push for consistent worlds a whole new structure in RTS could arise. Player created maps are uploaded at their creation, in a manner similar to Spore creatures. These maps become small planets that spawn randomly several places in a vast universe. Once A player conquers a map it becomes part of their "permanent" empire, A player can fight any player on any map to try to win that map from another player. Maps that are battled more often are perceived as more popular, and thus more iterations of that map will be spawned in the universe. The end result is a universe with self regulating map selections that is completely user generated.

World Building

The tool set of Bruce Branit's World Builder and Little big Planet are comparable,the main difference lies in the interface. The Little Big Planet world builder interface is somewhat limited because it's input device is a Playstation controller. Given this limitation however, the interface is intuitive and creative. The problem for dealing with a third dimension with an input device that is not designed for such a task is solved by creating three planes each of which are two dimensional levels.

In Banit's video, the interface is holographic and utilizes touch controls to create 3D environments. Although "buttons" are still utilized, most of the creation is done through gestures and motions. The nature of the holographic world makes three dimensional editing easier on a conceptual level because it is much easier to understand how the vertices relate to each other in space when it is a simple task to walk around the object, but upon closer inspection, this interface is not too different form Little Big Planet.

The button commands are very similar, of course, mapped commands accessed by touching a designated spot. The menus that display various texture options are also very similar, both by design and function. The main difference in interface would appear to be the analog stick "smearing" of objects versus the elegant gesture commands in the video. Conceptually though, an analog stick is little more than a very basic tracking device to determine the position of the player's thumb, and track it's motion to commit it into game commands. The interfaces are nearly identical in design, but Banit's world adds another level of depth and sophistication.

As for the aspect of world building, I'd have to say yes, these activities to be world building on the grounds that they create environments that can can be interacted with. When one gets philosophical on what it means to inhabit a world, or what constitutes a world's existence, the answer could be as simple as a doodle on a piece of paper is evidence of an entire world in which that drawing is a part of, or a world could require every detail to be addressed.

If the latter choice is selected then every step towards realism requires an exponential amount of effort, from randomly generated wind currents that have a minimal effect on physics, to the position of the sun in the sky relative to the season, to the presence of small rips or cuts of specks of dirt on character clothing as they interact with the environment; the world is never really "complete".

Therefore the most defendable position, in this author's opinion, is to simply accept any creation as evidence of it's own possible world, and thus an act of world building.

The Future Soon (with all due respect to Mr. Coulton)

In ten years there will be rocket cars, but of course no on would use them when teleporting is so much cheaper and easier. We will hover along perfect glass walkways adorned with floating illuminating orbs.

Really? 10 years? I can't see things changing all that much. If Casternova is right then MMO's will take off and I'll have my dream job of creating game art professionally. The government likely won't change all that much in 2 and a half presidents. Digital games will hopefully be protected as speech, and games will be simply accepted to have a voluntary self regulated rating system like film.

The real fun of this assignment though comes from the wild speculation about the internet; and if our reading has thought us nothing, it's that wild speculation is the way to go. So We will browse the internet as Avatars, with privacy settings that allow a figure to be anonymous until identified. Anyone on a website could talk with anyone else on that website, and discuss it's content. Perhaps spaces could be established where users could chat, I think I will dub them "chat rooms".(For those of you who did not read, Casternova speculates how players will be represented by "avatars" in the future)

Bottom line is not much changes in 10 years. We will think the fashion, technology, and music from the previous 10 years will be laughably bad, and insist that the current generation of fashion, technology, and music is truly inspiring and fantastic. That pretty much sums it up.

Diablo II: Lord of Destruction

Why Diablo II: The History of Diablo II Lord of Destruction
Diablo II was the sequel to the popular RPG Diablo, released November 30, 1996. A third party expansion was released for Diablo entitled Diablo: Hellfire on November 24, 1997. Diablo II was released June 29, 2000, less than 3 years later and its expansion, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction was released June 29, 2001. With Diablo III in development, but still yet to be announced as of April, 2009, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction presents the longest run of a Diablo Game without being amended by an additional expansion, or replaced by a sequel, ever.

The Persistent World
What separate the Diablo series from most MMORPGs is the nature of the persistent world, and the dynamics of the in game interaction. The games utilize Blizzard’s Battle.net online gaming system which stores player information and hosts games directly on a region specific server. Unlike most MMORPGs however, there is not a finite number of preset server worlds for players to choose from, instead the players choose to join a world space or “game” created by another player or they create their own game that other players may join. Within all world spaces several aspects will always be persistent: the town layouts for all five towns will always be the same, and the basic non playable characters will always exist in the same location, as well the player’s “stash” which functions as an additional area to store gold and items. The layout of the outside world also maintains a degree of persistency; the order in which the different areas connect is always the same, but where those connections are, as well as the areas themselves are generated semi-randomly each time a game is created. This brings us to the next unique facet of Diablo II: LOD.

The Random World
In lieu of static maps with units spawned at specific points, Diablo II: LOD utilizes semi random generation of enemies and terrain to create unique worlds each time a game is started. Although some enemies like act bosses and other super uniques remain constant throughout the game, many of the other monsters are chosen from a pool of possible monsters and spawned randomly throughout the maps. The “drops”, or the gold and items that a monster drops when it dies, are also significantly more random than in most MMORPGs. The drops from monsters are based on Monster Level, which determines the quality of equipment that can be dropped: Elite, Exceptional, or Normal, and the enchantment level of that equipment, Unique, Rare, Set, Magic, or Normal. The enchantments on all Magic and Rare equipment are also randomly generated. Thus getting better equipment requires killing higher level monsters, and multiple qualities of the equipment dropped will always be randomized from an incomprehensibly large pool of possibilities. The level of randomness is item drops, combined with the existence of items that can only be used by effectively by specific classes, or players with specific skills and the unusual economy of Diablo II presents itself

The Economy
Gold in Diablo II is essentially useless. The economy focuses entirely around the bartering and trading of useful items. Relative value of items vary dramatically form player to player, and as there is no real set currency, the trading games are often unpredictable and require the player to possess a certain level of out of game bartering skills. The game is made more interesting by the extremely limited carrying space on characters and stashes and the lack of any formalized item storing, transferring, or trading systems outside of one on one player trade windows. To compensate for this scarcity, many players create “mule” characters, or characters that are only used to store items. The lack of a formal system of transferring items to characters on the same account leaves players with two viable options for transferring their stored goods. They can either trade the goods to an intermediary, sign off, then sign back on with a different character then trade the goods back, or a far riskier approach. The player can sign on and create a game with a password, then stay in the game for a few moments until the game is set properly in the server for permanence, then drop their items and leave the world, and sign back on with a different character and join the empty world. If the player does not return to the empty world fast enough, it, and all of the items in it, will be deleted when the server clears the memory. All of these factors keep the marketplaces of Diablo II: LOD vibrant and unique from day to day.

Core Mechanics
Examining the parts of a game does not do justice to the game as a whole; the pieces of Diablo II: LOD create an experience that is unique even in the MMORPG crazed market of today. The games brilliance lies in its simplicity. There is no leveling up gathering of herbs, or gaining proficiency in creating medicines, nor is there weaving fabric, or making armor. The core mechanic of the game is to go out and kill monsters. The monsters are always different because of the semi-persistent, and semi random world. Your economical prowess is directly proportional to your character level because item drops are dependent entirely on monster level and higher monster levels require higher leveled characters. Furthermore players cannot cheat the system by taking a group of 8 players up to fight monsters of a much higher level because the world automatically readjusts the difficulty of the world based on the number of players present. In other words, if there are more players, there will still be the same number of monsters, and those monsters will still drop equipment of that monster level, but they will be harder to kill, and drop enough equipment for all the players.

The Social Experience
Diablo II: LOD takes a unique stance on social game play. The game has a fully functional single player mode, as well as the ability to play LAN games with friends using single player characters all stored on the player’s computer instead of the Battle.net server. By design the game can be beaten through all three modes (Normal, Nightmare, and Hell) with a single player. However, the relative uselessness of gold from selling powerful items to vendors, versus the returns for trading items with players strongly encourages a more social experience, involving trading with other players. Furthermore many character abilities, like Paladin Auras, or Barbarian War Cries provide bonuses not only for the player, but also for fellow party members. A casual glance at the game lists of Diablo II: LOD will reflect the social aspects of the game, from games entitled “MarketPlace” or “Trade” to “Kill Baal” or “RescueCain” (specific quest in the game).

Making sense of "Players" and Creators"

For this post I am going to nip this player's rights and creator's obligations over morality in the bud. The problem here is not players seeking what they are entitled to, or game companies infringing upon free speech. Neither of these issues or even relevant in this argument, and I'll tell you why.

First lets look at similar, well established system, a bowling alley. Players pay a fee to attend a bowling alley, wherein they may play the game offered, as well as interact socially with other players. The game cannot be played outside of a bowling alley, and the equipment used to play the game: balls, pins, lanes, etc. are all owned by the alley. Therefore it is the call of the bowling alley as to what is allowed within their establishment. On the other hand, if they create an environment that does not encourage bowling, players are likely to attend another bowling alley instead. In short, the players cannot bowl without a bowling alley, and the bowling alley cannot afford to pay its lease without players bowling, both players and the alley understand this relationship. For love of the game, players band together and create bowling leagues, which the bowling alley supports as it increases their revenues.

Now lets look at how the MMO world operates. Players purchase a client that allows them to visit a server(bowling alley). Subscription is based on month long sessions as opposed to single trips. While logged into the server players utilize the character creator tools, navigate the game world, and interact socially with other players. The game objects, textures, animations, and physics are all owned by the server, and the Admins of the server have the final say as to what players can do with the game pieces they are playing with. On the other hand, if the game world becomes inhospitable to play, the players are likely to attend a separate game world.
In short, players cannot play the game without the game world server, and the game world server cannot afford maintenance and updates without players. It is assumed both the players and the server administrators understand this relationship. For love of the game, players band together and create guilds, which are supported by the game world server as it increases their revenues.

Recently however, there have been some debates as to what is to be done about "troublemakers" in MMOs. Players that seek to run off with game pieces and sell them, or cause disturbances to other players in the world. Who is responsible for such actions and what is to be done about them? This is not a difficult question. Upon logging into a game world the players are informed of the house rules (license agreement) and they must agree to abide by them to even get in the door. If a player breaks those rules, warn him or toss him out. If he keeps breaking the rules, ban him from the premises. How hard was that?

Game, Play, Mechanics

It's blog time again; today's subject is the use of game mechanics in Fluxx; a game that has no real story. There is no sequence of actions causing a character to rise up ladders or go down chutes, nor does it chronicle rival property lords hoping to develop a real estate monopoly. Fluxx does not benefit from a theme such as a parody of D&D game play and mechanics, nor the impression of being an executioner during the French revolution. Fluxx is a game designed entirely around its rules and mechanics.

A game based around rules, sounds "fun" doesn't it? It's actually not too bad, the game is turn based with turns that proceed clockwise around the table. Each turn consists of drawing cards, playing cards, and if need be, discarding cards. The cards you play fall into 5 categories: Keeper, Creeper, Rule, Action or Goal. Keeper cards get played in front of you, they do not affect the game in anyway unless the current goal card requires them to win. Creepers are also played in front of you, they have no effect on game play except they prevent you from winning the game unless the goal card say otherwise. Rule cards dictate how many cards are drawn each round, how many cards are played each round, how many cards you may have in your hand at once and miscellaneous other rules. Actions allow you to get rid of rules, steal other people's cards, pick a card from the discard pile, and other generic actions. Finally goal cards determine the conditions for winning,, which from my experience all seem to revolve around if you have 2 random keepers in front of you or not.
So how does this game play out? For me it was an exercise in randomness and tedium. It is a grand leap from Candy Land in the number of choices you can make at any given time, but at the same time the decisions that you make have a relatively low chance of actually affecting the end of the game. It is almost remarkable when you think about it; there are 2 randomly generated sets, rules, and keepers, and the goal of the game is that the goals line up with a certain players keepers first. Simplified the game would play out by every player randomly being assigned a number 1-6, then a die being cast. If the die number equals a player number, that player wins, if not roll again. If you want to replicate the tedium and length of the game, try the same game with a D20.

In closing, my particular experience was not the best, but I am by no means the authority of which board games shall triumph, and which shall fail. There is the chance of a fun game emerging from the mess of keepers, creepers, actions, rules and goals, but like everything else in Fluxx, it is just a small chance of good amongst an ocean on pointlessness.

Virtually Cheating

Today we are discussing the topics of cheating and unsportsmanlike behavior, and how they apply various game platforms.
Let us look first at what it means to cheat or display unsportsmanlike behavior. Cheating consists of game play in direct opposition to the rules of the game. Unsportsmanlike behavior is game play not directly forbidden by the game rules, but still devalues the playing of the game.
For instance the rules of tic tac toe explicitly say the board is a 3x3 matrix, and players alternate turns placing their respective mark. Two marks may not occupy the same square and the first player to place 3 marks aligned vertically, horizontally or diagonally wins.
An example of cheating in tic tac toe would be to go twice in a row or to make an additional box outside of the matrix and put your mark there. Whereas an example of unsportsmanlike behavior would be to simply refuse to take your turn when there is no way to prevent defeat.
Some games, Such as Munchkin by Steve Jackson, openly condone cheating in the rules, but this creates a fallacy. If cheating is allowed by the rules then it is no longer opposed to the rules and thus no longer cheating. So then what to call "cheating" in Munchkin? Well let’s take a look at a typical situation. You are allowed no more than 5 cards in your hand at the end of your turn, however you are also allowed to cheat if no one calls you on it. Compare this to a similar mechanic, if you are fighting a monster in the game, you win if your power level is higher; otherwise you roll a dice to see if you can escape. When you have more than 5 cards in your hand, you are in a disadvantageous situation by the rules, but much like escaping from a monster, the game has offered a solution with a lower than average chance of success to prevent this situation from being so dire. Thus in the game where cheating is permitted, cheating is simply another game mechanic with implicit rules.
The rules of a computer game's rules are programmed. In other words, a video game is nothing but a collection of rules that are executed enforced computer perfection. There are occasionally exploits or glitches that arise from errors in the programming of these rules, but the rules themselves remain infallibly enforced. Thus any attempt for a video game, regardless of the number of players, to allow cheating, would have to implicitly write the situations, range, and extent to which cheating is allowed; and at that point, it is simply another game mechanic. Unsportsmanlike behavior however, is a different story. Players will still often mock, jeer, lie to, argue with, and insult other players within a game. It is simply accepted that any game wherein there is a means for the player to express him or herself, there will be unsportsmanlike behavior.