The Cesspit. - Ravings

Follow-up on Warhammer Online

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:33:09 -0700

I was thinking: go on and make the PvE game harder in the initial levels like you said, now that the game is losing players and that the servers are almost completely empty. Especially the low level zones, I'd guess.

On Q23 I was reading this comment, likely from someone who played recently:

On the PQs, I think it's still a brilliant concept. No, you can't make it THAT challenging - these aren't coordinated groups. But it does foster some grouping and player interaction. I still think those are the best part of WAR. The challenge is that they're abandoned now. I'm not sure how you overcome that...but on release I LOVED the PQs.

The kind of problem we pointed out at release. Public quests are a broken design concept if you don't implement a scaling/adapting dynamic.

But then go on and put the nails on the coffin, it is surely better than the slow agony.

Warhammer failed and is sinking not because of technical competency, lack of resources or lack of support from EA. It failed because of very bad game design all around.

Warhammer failed because PvE was too easy and too soloable

Wed, 16 Sep 2009 16:46:29 -0700

On Q23 today I noticed a necro thread about Warhammer (you know, that game we used to talk about a year ago). I went looking why it was resurrected and the reason is that all Mythic's services went offline. Including all Warhammer and DAoC servers.

It's quite a big fuckup (since I think it's been already a few hours, if not the whole day), so I went checking the forum to see if there was the kind of rage I'd expect. Not so much. It's quite calm. Maybe because there are only an handful of players left, and even those who are left aren't particularly caring either.

While looking at this I noticed a link to a gamasutra article that boasted this title: GDC Austin: Mythic's Hickman Shares Warhammer Online's Biggest Mistakes

I'm curious, let's see these biggest mistakes (the three major ones are reported). Let's see if, one year later and one Jacobs less, they got some clue.

Here's their three biggest mistakes they think they made on Warhammer:

1- The PvE game is too easy in the initial levels.
2- Since the game is too easy and too soloable, people don't socialize.
3- Farming gold and grinding is not important. But it brings together the community.

The article is also filled with brilliance and awesome insight, like:

"The era of boxed products is ending."
"Digital distribution is absolutely profitable"
"if your game is flawed and you have to make massive rebuilds, that's risky."

If you don't believe me, here the actual quotes about those three major mistakes:

1- "Warhammer, in PVE, in the beginning, is too easy."
2- "You can do so many things solo, that friendship, at least in the beginning levels, is not necessary, and it's super dangerous for your games."
3- "what it caused us to do was build a game where economy is not important enough. Economy brings people together."

It's also quite funny because when they asked him if these issues were the same reported by players during beta he said, obviously not:
"I'm not sure how many of our players would say it's too easy; it's not something they think about. There are a lot of things they point at and say are the problems, but [actually] it's that."

Players wouldn't say that PvE being too easy is the game's major flaw (maybe because players aren't as clueless as himself), but it's that. No really. It's that.

Now after my crusade against Mark Jacobs you'd expect that I find the current Mythic at least slightly improved (since he left, if you remember). I'm not. Mythic with Jacobs had at least some drive. Mythic without Jacobs seems just as clueless, and even lost all drive.

Proofs of reversed trolling, manipulation and abuse of moderation

Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:11:28 -0700

In the last couple of weeks I joined an heated discussion on Martin's board about the ~~Hulk Vs The Thing~~ Martin Vs Erikson endless debate.

I always try to prove what I say and explain my point of view the best I can. My final purpose is that if we have to disagree we'll disagree on some concrete opinions and not on misunderstanding or manipulation of opinions to win an argument. In fact, and even in this case, I participate in the discussion not to "prevail", but because I find it interesting and enriching in a way. Confrontation.

Problem is when your opinion clashes with the one of a moderator, whose opinion in this particular case is completely biased and unreliable (axe to grind). I actually read and appreciate his blog a lot. Just not about Erikson.

This was the last exchange put in context.

Iron Tusk:
i've only read gardens of the moon, but the impression i got from the book is that erikson writes like an anthropologist rather than an author. does that make any sense? regardless, i found gardens of the moon to be an extremely dry read and i highly doubt i'll continue on with the series.

that said, i thought the book was filled with wonderful ideas that were simply poorly executed (IMO) and i can see why this series is very popular, it's simply not for me.

End of disk one:
If your main problem was the writing, anyone will tell you that the writing in the first book is much different than in the rest of the series. It was written about 15 years before the rest.

Werthead (the moderator):
GotM was written about 8 years before DHG, but yes, a fair bit before.

Personally I always thought GotM was quite representative of the writing in the other MBF books (and superior to the last two, perhaps the last four, books), the only difference with the others is that you get used to it by the time you reach them.

Me:
I won't get again in the discussion but your revisionism is becoming just unbelievable.

Again, it's all a matter of taste and preference, but saying that the writing in the first book is the same of the writing of the other books is plain wrong.

I'm not saying plotting, characters, ideas and so on. Just the writing. If you think the writing is the same then I can't even believe anymore that you are being honest here.

I started reading Deadhouse Gates a day after the end of Gardens of the Moon and the difference was immense.

Werthead:
(about me saying it's false that the writing of the first book is the same of the other books) Possibly. In many ways, it is superior.

(about my comment on his revisionism) Sorry, I'm being lectured to on my opinions on this series by someone who hasn't read the damn thing?

We'll talk again when you know what the hell you are blathering about.

My reply to the last two lines Werthead wrote:
This again.

We were discussing the difference in the writing between the first and the second book. I read those. There's significant progress between the books that may or may not be appreciated. But it is there and it is undeniable.

Kuenjato:
Werthead's assertion was that the writing in GotM is superior to the last two (and perhaps four) books of the series, not DH or MoI.

My reply to kuenjato, that was deleted for "trolling":
Nope, you have to put that in context. Someone said that he didn't like the writing of the first book. Someone else replied that many years passed between the books and that Erikson improved as a writer. Then Werthead chimed in to say that it is true that years passed (but less) but that there wasn't any improvement in the writing, actually it got worse.

In fact he said that there wasn't any improvement and that "the only difference" is that us readers became used to it. This is just false.

I didn't notice a significant improvement between the first and the second book because I suddenly "got used" to the writing in the few days that passed before I started reading the second. I noticed it because it is there and it is undeniable even by those who do not like the way Erikson writes.

This part of a long forum thread where for everything thing that was said Werth came to say the opposite just for fun. Constantly and without any motivation. Even on those points that both Erikson's fans and haters agree.

That's what I call trolling. Coming to a discussion and say "no" to everything, without bothering to motivate anything. Then when someone opposes you, you tell him "you aren't qualified to speak" (because I only read four books), and then finally deleting my posts because his axe to grind was just becoming too obvious and his position indefensible.

About the actual debate, it's a proven fact that Erikson improves as a writer as the series goes on. Again, it doesn't mean that one who dislikes the first book will then obligatorily like the second, but everything is done much better and there have been many readers who said that they only started to like Erikson after the second book or the third, so this is often brought up when someone asks for suggestions like in this case. Opinions, sure. But denying progress in the writing is about denying something everyone else noticed and agreed upon. It's the most frequent comment you can read everywhere, in reviews or across different forums that don't have a particular bias.

For example, this is from Q23 (that is not a dedicated author's forum, and so less prone to bias), and it's not me writing it:

I'd also say that his writing generally improves as the series continues on; the biggest jump is indeed between Gardens of the Moon and the rest, but you can still kind of see it happening from book to book following.

Just one of many.

There can only be a discussion if we speak the same language. If one just wants to disrupt everything that is being said, disagreeing just to hinder the discussion, then I'll call that trolling.

I'm writing off Jumpgate

Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:46:39 -0700

A gaming interlude to give closure to the few hopes I had.

Today they were bragging that they reached whatever number of applications to beta they reached. The fact that the game should have been already out and they still haven't invited anyone to that beta appears secondary.

Their PvP system is incredibly original:

MMORPG.com:
What loot reward systems are in place for PvP in JGE?

Hermann Peterscheck:
Loot rewards will be sold to you by special vendors which require you to have a certain amount of renown to gain access to. Additionally you get XP and credits for kills, contribution to kills and other objectives which you can complete as part of PVP.

They also can't be arsed to write a design doc. I guess it's too soon to have one:

MMORPG.com:
What experience reward systems are in place for PvP in JGE?

Hermann Peterscheck:
Currently you get XP, Credits and Renown for all PVP kills. Depending on how well you do and your contribution determines how much of each you get. In the case of battlespace, winning the round will give bonuses. In the case of open world PVP, the winning nation gains control over that part of space which has consequences and benefits we have not specified.

Good luck with your next game Netdevil.

Game design bloggers?

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:45:49 -0700

Huff, I didn't want to enter this debate, but since everyone seems to agree with her, I'll have to disagree:

Why do I ask? Mostly because I know a lot of talented game designers in the industry that most people have never heard of in their life. They don’t read blogs, they don’t read design theory novels, they don’t analyze the psychological reasons why people interact how they do. They simply know how to make good games, and don’t use theories behind it.

This sounds as realistic as someone playing wonderfully an instrument without having ever studied music.

Made worse by the fact that game design isn't art, it is science. Sure, there are artistic aspects, but I quite believe that the practical ones are more relevant. If things work there's a reason. Maybe some designer can have an innate talent and get things right from the start, or without knowing exactly the motivations. But those motivations exist and if you want to succeed more than once it's a good practice to start looking at the causes. I believe that an analytical mind is more useful than a creative one, in this field.

The circulation of ideas, from my point of view, helps immensely as long you know what to do with it. Or we would be stuck remaking pac-man (that for many actual designers isn't far from truth).

But *real* game designers? They'll hardly write or read anything. They are too scared that out there everyone knows better then them. Being deaf and blind is the only way they have to stay sane. As long they don't lose their job.

Jumpgate: flight model and the myth of choice

Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:24:37 -0700

In February I said I was going to hope the new Jumpgate was a good game. I'm still hoping, but the more I read about the game the more I got my hopes crushed.

I could summarize what's wrong in a quote of the producer from the last dev chat, it explains what's wrong at the core:

Hermann: When you look at game development it's my preference to always please everybody.

And pleasing everybody is the shortest route to please no one and make a forgettable game that enters and then exits the market within a few months, without anyone remembering it.

The "concept" that I identify with my hopes about Jumpgate is about a game with space combat, with intuitive controls and big battle with awesome dogfighting, following the tradition of X-Wing, Freespace, Wing Commander and so on. Add some warring factions and territorial control and it would become a dream of a game.

Without going through the usual missteps (game is based on experience and levelling up, PvP only exists in instanced battlegrounds), it's the controls to be the biggest issue. Especially in the perspective of a PvP game.

As with the quote above, the devs think of pleasing everyone. Jumpgate classic had an horrid flight control. You know, the kind where the direction where your ship points IS NOT the direction where you are going. The kind where the whole game is about not blowing up when you're trying to dock. It's all there. Or "Newtonian physics". I tried it in Jumpgate, it was not fun. I tried it in all those 2D top-down asteroids clone, it wasn't fun. It's not that it's hard to master, but then it gets better. Nope, it's just not fun.

Now, this new Jumpgate will have a different flight model. Ships will fly in the direction they are pointed to. You turn and the ship changes direction. But they are also trying to please everyone. So you can switch freely between one flight model and the other. It's your choice.

Isn't everyone happy?

No, I'm not. It's not my fucking choice. I want dogfighting gameplay, ok? Dogfighting gameplay means that there is maneuverings. You trying to stay on the tail of your target, anticipate his moves while trying to dodge the bullets of others. This is dogfighting gameplay. I want this. Now think that I'm chasing my target, right in the center of my bulls eye. I'm about to fire when my target does a 180 spin and starts firing right at me while his ship is flying in the other direction. WHERE THE FUCK IS MY CHOICE NOW? HUH?

There isn't any damned choice. If you allow a different flight model to exist, then it will have an effect on MY gameplay. If ships spin around freely then there isn't any dogfighting, it's a wholly different game. And, FOR SURE, you aren't pleasing me.

So, as a game designer, it is your choice whether to make a game in a way or another. It isn't written anywhere that one flight model has the right to exist, while the other hasn't. But "giving players the choice" is a fucking joke. Is about not taking responsibility of what you are doing and destroy gameplay in every way possible.

I guess this sums up why Netdevil never made a decent game: they are unable to make choices.

The best answer was this one though:

DK_FR: Is the game going to be released in June or later?

Mike: Possibly.

Are you deaf or drunk? Possibly.

--
I also wanted to add this passage, because they seem to drown into really simple design quirks:

Hermann: The original game had multi-faction squads and right now we're planning that won't be the case. A controversial issue. The reason is that it starts to interfere with core problems. For example, if you're in a multi-nation squad, say there are five Quantar and five Solrains, and you're out in an open PvP scenario in the same squad capturing a beacon, do the Solrains kill the Quantars? And how do you communicate that difference to people? That also goes for instanced PvP, when you join a squad of people you plan on playing with them a lot. But if there's any implied negative relationship between the groups then it conflicts directly against that.

It's a core issue which can get really big as more people are added to the game. If you have a game that is separated along any kind of a line, they tend to isolate players. We don't want to isolate people completely, but there are these natural points where it just becomes easier to separate people in some way and enforce that with gameplay rules, rather than confusing that by letting people mix as much as they want. Then having to fight the gameplay problems that come from that.

They have a problem with multi-faction groups. They want these groups to exist, so that the factions don't isolate players, so they can group freely together. But then this can be confusing.

So, since they can't decide for anything even here, they give up on the system and just removed multi-faction groups. They preferred isolation to confusion.

Excuse me, but why are things confusing as you say? In PvE no one cares. You shoot mobs, so you don't care to recognize if another player is in an enemy faction or not. Besides, either you are enemy or aren't. No?

This is a PvP problem. PvP is also only instanced. Think about it for longer than two seconds? Good, problem solved. American's Army made everyone believe the other faction was "terrorist", no matter of the side you were on. So will Jumpgate game designers manage, in an instanced room, to flag an enemy group as "enemy"? This must be a really hard task. In Eve-Online they use red cross for dangerous targets. In Quake they make one side "red" and the other "blue". It seems to work quite well and it doesn't matter if on the same faction there are giant eyes, demons or other weird things. You look at the dominant color and that's it. You shoot.

Will Netdevil daring game designers succeed in reinventing the wheel? A controversial question.

WoW reached its peak, will decline now. Smart people at GDC are cheating you.

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 09:55:35 -0700

1- Blizzard has no competition and they don't need to try anymore to stay ahead. There isn't any need to fight even on the last thousands of players. They win, everyone else lost. Game over.

The patches are getting slower and more insubstantial, filled with pages of convoluted class changes. It's quite obvious that the there's no creative push behind this and that they are only trying to please the current many subscribers, especially the ones still heavily invested in the game. There is no attempt to reach further.

It's also quite obvious that resources are being moved. A while ago Blizzard was only working on WoW. Now they have WoW, Starcraft, Diablo and another MMO project. They were never able to do more than one thing at once and now the focus will start to shift. As always in this industry you only see the effect of what happens behind the scenes a few years later. It starts now, the effect will come later.

The lead designer, Jeff Kaplan, left WoW to move on the new project. We know only of the public figures but it is obvious that he is followed by many more that work in the back.

WoW is now in the (un)capable hands of Kalgan. Have fun.

2- Lum quoted various pieces from a conference (where industry people only go to feel proud, boast their cultivated shortsightedness, feel validated among equals, avoid challenges, avoid reality, shake hands, and whose game design relevance is a negative number) where Jeff Kaplan talks about quest design. Jeff Kaplan is in my "good guys book" and I'm not entirely sure if he was mocking the audience thinking that they would only grasp the superficial level anyway, and so talk in a language they could understand.

It's not the specific of what he says to be wrong, it's the overall sense. I only read Lum quotes but those ideas were considered good ideas "on paper" that revealed to be poor in practice. Bottom line: these ideas should be avoided.

That's a wrong conclusion. Wrong interpretation. It's about trying to understand aspects of the game with only one rigid model. That's the inner flaw. It's not in the quest ideas, it's in the approach.

Everyone of those examples isn't just a "good idea on paper". Gone bad in practice. Why? Because it obviously was a bad idea even in paper? Nope. It was a possibly good idea with an inappropriate execution.

That's the point: good ideas with bad execution. All of them.

Take the example of the quest in Stranglethorn. The idea is cool. It is also not an obligatory quest, so if you don't like the added layers you can always skip it. Where's the big flaw of that quest? Not in the concept. It's in the limits of the inventory. So. You may solve the problem by erasing the quest entirely. Or you may fix the one problem. In this case you could create a container object that takes 1 slot in the inventory and that can contain all the parts that can be then taken and sold in the auction, traded or whatever.

"For a single quest to consume 19 spaces in your bags is just ridiculous."

That's right. That's why you solve the one problem, as the cool concept behind the quest wasn't to consume all those spaces, but to create an economy and add a new layer.

Now this is an example, but every one else following is the seed of the same consideration: inappropriate quest concepts because they don't fit the standard framework. Not BAD quest concepts. Just quest concepts that step out of the limited tools given.

Problem is the framework, not the material. The problem is execution, not quest concepts. Given that implementation, the quest didn't work. But this doesn't make it an universally bad quest that wouldn't or can't work in other cases.

The "quest chains" aren't bad because of what they are. They are bad because the quest UI is standardized and doesn't support them properly (in fact the only way to see even a short chain quest is to use MODs like Wowhead). It's again a flaw in the framework. You are bringing creative ideas to a framework that doesn't support them. Either you dump all creative quest concepts, or you invest in programmers that expand the framework to support new quest types properly. But, again, the rigidness of a framework is the real true cause of a good or bad idea applied to it. Its context.

So enjoy your GDC. Either I'm overestimating Kaplan, or he was there just to deceive you with apparent sincerity. He keeps the good lessons (solutions) for himself.

P.S.
Ubiq on this as well. That would lead to think that he doesn't get it either, but look further, deeper. That's the hidden war he's doing to Bioware. His purpose is there. Nowadays when devs have an hard time to impose themselves internally, they rant externally.

Game designer visionaries, or hallucinated leeches

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 16:16:01 -0800

Dave Perry on Gamasutra:

Showing names like Shigeru Miyamoto and Hideo Kojima on the screen, Perry said Japan has produced some of the best video game designers of all time -- "but would you be willing to bet China will never produce one of those names?" he asked.

Yes, I'm willing. They won't.

If that level of talent emerges in China or Korea, and decides to make games using the free-play-model, traditional game developers with traditional business models may be unable to compete for an audience, Perry warned,

China and Korea are known to prefer quantity over quality. If that level of talent was supposed to surface, then it would have already. It's not like China and Korea aren't making games. In fact they are producing A HUGE PILE OF SHIT.

If China and Korea haven't produced anything worthwhile it's because that business model promotes disposable games that have the lifespan of one week. Only shit comes out of that kind of fragmentation and lack of focus. Games with no depth.

"Our" industry is done and buried the day they betray our traditions and talents to mass produce the same shit and chase mediocrity. The path to failure is about forgetting who you are and what you do best in the name of "market innovation".

And become just a pale imitator of mediocrity.

Casual players are slackers

Wed, 18 Feb 2009 10:07:59 -0800

A comment on Tobold's blog about the higher and higher requirements to be able to join a group:

It really is about the risk on the time invested. In the second week of January, or so, it seems the majority caught up with the achievers, and all of a sudden there was a severe drop in the competency and preparedness of the average PuG'er. I started leaving a lot of heroic groups five minutes in when I'd end up doing over 40% of the damage or our "tank" had 18k health. The situation has degraded with PuG raids. I've seen a Naxx10 fail because six of the DPS were doing less than 1500dps.

To me, it's an issue of respect. I invested time and effort into ensuring that I am competent and well-equipped enough not to hinder the success of the run. I expect the same in return from other players. DPS should significantly outperform tanks in their role. Tanks should have at least 5k more health than I do and be able to hold AoE threat. Healers in heroics should have enough spellpower to spare a heal on someone other than the tank, and enough awareness to see when they're needed.

Slackers who seem to think attendance qualifies entitlement show disrespect, and are undeserving of my time and effort.

I am disgusted.

Not at the reaction of this player (sample of a general trend) but of the fact that a massive game encourages and promotes this type of interaction.

It's also counterproductive, as the more requirements rise higher, the harder for new people to reach that level. A social fracture.

Minor quibble on Mythic 55 pages of patch notes

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 18:35:19 -0800

Beside the fact they really tried hard to lengthen the patch notes at the expense of readability, this following passage goes beyond what is reasonable:

* To earn a Domination Point from a Keep, it must be claimed by a Guild and then held for 2 hours. If you lose control of a Battlefield Objective or Keep at any time, you lose the Domination Point.

* Multiple Domination Points cannot be gained from a single source (for example, it isn't possible to get 6 Domination Points by capturing Martyr's Square 6 times).

Why that second point? Why to clarify what was already implicit and so making it more confused?

If to gain control on a zone you need to hold all six contested points, and if you lose one you lose the point associated to it, then it is obvious that you won't get anything by capturing one more than once.

1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 = 1

Not 6.

You simply need to conquer and hold all the contested objectives, and hold each for a set amount of time before it counts. That's all. There was no need to use "points" in this system and apply specific rules. Overcomplicated design and contrived explanation.

EDIT: Another less minor quibble I saw pointed out on the forums:

* Playing with Fire: This ability will now hit for the correct amount of damage.

Well, since you were at writing 55 pages of notes at least you could have made them informative.

I'm glad the ability now hits for what you think is "correct" damage, but maybe knowing how much would be too useful? Or know if the damage was lowered or increased?

They were too worried to make these patch notes look positive, more than make them look informative. Less complaints if the notes don't explain the merit of balance changes. Things were "fixed"! Now it is all "correct"! 55 pages! Don't worry anymore.

SOE buys Zonk

Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:33:05 -0800

No polemics, really.

i just think it's silly that you write a whole post saying nothing and make me read the comments (Grimwell) to have a good guess at what happened.

Anyhow, good luck. I'm always glad when someone makes it. I almost never agree with Zonk, but... HOORAY. Passion is always worth a try (o two, or three).

P.S.
Totally unasked opinion: on the matter of DC Universe Online I expect the market situation to be not exactly favorable. Right now there's already a fairly successful MMO about super heroes and two more big titles in production. Is there really a need for more?

Between the two I hope SOE is more successful. With Champions Online Cryptic declared they don't believe in virtual worlds and ongoing development, and that they aren't committed to keep their games up to date and competitive. Champions Online is made to replace City of Heroes and it will be in turn be abandoned and replaced as soon something new and shiny catches the eye of those developers (Bill Roper first, one who thinks his public persona is more important than any game).

On the matter of DC Universe Online I know very little, but, it has bad art (personal opinion) and the animations from videos released are terrible, terrible, terrible (fact). SOE games having bad animations is becoming an overall rule, what's up with the animators over there? How it is possible that across all games you can't even make one that matches a standard of quality?

Freespace 2 complete install guide

Sun, 08 Feb 2009 18:57:54 -0800

Freespace 2 is one of the legendary space-sim dogfighting games, along with X-Wing, the earlier Wing Commander and Freespace (the newer X games instead are crappy dogfighting games but they offer more for space exploration, trading and so on). While on a emulator the three Colony Wars for PSX are still a lot of fun.

Freespace 2 is still a valid game to play today. The genre is dead commercially, but this is one of the games (along with Falcon 4 or Jagged Alliance) that got a huge following of modders along the years. The source code was released and work on the game never stopped since. Today you can play it relatively bug free with a very good engine and all the graphic redone for a much better quality overall. Definitely worth checking out since now it's both pretty and fun as it always was (if you never played it then you should).

I spent a day figuring out the best install possible and it wasn't an easy task at all.

So, in the case I need to go through this again and for you, here are all the steps to follow.

Freespace 2 perfect install - Freespace 1 + 2 with all campaigns, missions, audio files, movies and updated graphic

1- Get in some way the three original CDs of Freespace 2. Freespace 1 is not needed.
2- Install the game normally (full install).
3- Get this file and move it to FreeSpace2\Installer\ (create this folder if it doesn't exist)
4- Get the very latest .exe.
5- Get the latest launcher (at this time Launcher55e.zip).
6- Get the compressed FS2 cutscenes. All the files of 4,5 and 6 go in FreeSpace2\ directory (root, no subdirs).
7- Check the latest Media VPs release (at this time 3.6.10). This is all the updated graphics and effects.
8- Create a new folder called "mediavps" in your Freespace 2 install folder.
9- Get the Total 3.6.1 package.
10- Unpack the whole content into the "mediavps" folder you created (8 files).
11- Get the 3.6.10 Patch.
12- Copy 3610_Patch.vp into the "mediavps" folder.
13- Get CubeMap.dss file and put it into /mediavps/data/effects (create dirs)

Now to get FS1 files:

14- Check latest release (at this time 3.1.1).
15- Create a new folder called "fsport" in your Freespace 2 install folder. All the following files go in there.
16- FSPort 3.1.1 Core.
17- FSport Mission Pack.
18- High Resolution Interface Art.
19- Cutscene Pack.
20- Voice files.
21- Command Briefings.
22- Music.
23- Create a new folder called "fsport-mediavps" in your Freespace 2 install folder. The following file go in there.
24- FSPort Media VP Pack.

Now to configure:

25- Run Launcher.exe from root directory.
26- Press "browse" and select the .exe to use (at this time: fs2_open_3_6_10r-20090203_r5063.exe).
27- Go to "video" tab and set everything as you want.
28- Go to "feature" tab, list type "graphics" and check the following: enable specular, enable glowmaps, enable environment maps, apply lighting to missiles, enable normal maps, enable 3D shockwaves.
28- list type "gameplay" and check the following: enable 3D warp, enable flash upon warp.
29- Add the following to "custom flags" field: -ambient_factor 125 -ogl_spec 40 -spec_exp 10 -spec_point 1.2 -spec_static 1.5 -spec_tube 1.5
30- Go to "MOD" tab, press "select MOD" and pick the right directory. It's "mediavps" for Freespace 2 and "fsport-mediavps" for Freespace 1. You need to swap these if you want to change between the two games.

That's it. My complete install takes about 3.65Gb of hd space. The rest is about configuring the options in the game, controls and all the typical stuff. If the two games and all their missions aren't enough you can still find a number of brand new campaigns and total conversions on the forums. There's as much content as you want.

Have fun with one the best game in its genre, it's rare nowadays to find one worthy. Maybe Jumpgate Evolution won't suck, but then Netdevil has taught me to keep hopes low.

Applause

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 15:20:32 -0800

The applause is for the words of Sanya and Lum. It's refreshing to see people to step out of the proper path to defend what is worth defending.

I can't say anything because I don't know anyone at Mythic, but I appreciate when people talk straight. Even the fanboys didn't swallow this.

My only hope is that all this, again, isn't about wasted words, but lessons to learn and then used to change things radically. It's a crisis and maybe it is likely to be paid by the wrong people. But, ultimately, I hope it all comes back and those who really deserve it will be rewarded. Hopefully sooner than later.

Just one last thing: That Mythic lost a lot of very good people is obvious. It didn't start the 3rd February 2009.

Monster AI

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 20:09:01 -0800

I had promised myself I wouldn't waste more of my time writing about game design but today goes like this and I want to stop that itch.

Lum on monster AI:

This is not an experience people will pay for. Game design, in many ways, is convincing players that they won a struggle against imposing odds. It does not mean actually creating imposing odds.

Also, I have seen metrics prove conclusively, time and time and time and time again, that in a game that *does* have monsters with decent AI and that use strategies that require some thought to defeat, that players will avoid them in droves and seek out the ones with the most brain damaged AI possible.

Players dislike challenge. They SAY they like challenge. They lie.

I know he is generalizing, but I don't quite agree.

Today, if I play a game where I feel I have to kill an easy monster over and over because it's the faster path I'd unsubscribe faster than I can gain two levels. Sure, I WILL behave exactly like you describe, but not for long. It's the wrong way to approach the problem. You also give for granted a bunch of arbitrary (but common) conditions. That the game is based on levels, that experience points are not linked directly to something specific you do and that the main draw of the gameplay is to grow the character's power.

It is true that what you describe is a pattern that exists and is fairly common. I just don't think you can take it and deduct rules and generalizations about it.

I'm writing this post because the other day I was thinking again about what's wrong in Fallout and Oblivion combat. My answers are also pertinent to the topic here.

What's wrong in Oblivion is that the combat "feels" generated through an editor. The monsters you encounter all share the same system. They just change a bunch of numbers relative to stats and dice rolls. It's different graphic and animation linked to numeric variables (just different chances to dodge, parry, attack). The result is that it plays the same from the beginning to end.

The difference with games whose combat system I consider well done (like God of War) is that in these (those well done) monsters don't share all the same rules or just have different variables regulating their actions, but they actually come into play and challenge the player in new ways.

Since the beginning I didn't talk about "AI", but about "patterns". From my point of view no mmorpg needs an AI system (even less need it built and then all monsters in the game referencing to it), they just need fun variations. Different approaches.

We need NO AI. Think of WoW's instances. Every monster there has all the tools to kill players at ANY time. But not. It will shout to you "Hey, I am going to use my special power in 60 seconds. Pay attention to the counter on screen, or you'll die!". What we have is "patterns". Planned exits. The game and the encounter is only as good and fun as the pattern offered. What we have is clearly defined ways to win. To learn and execute within a margin of error. If you add too much randomness or unpredictability to the system you would just obtain something "opaque" that ends frustrating the players.

When it comes to MMOs we are still at the level of Space Invaders. If the waves of ships would come with some variation it would be already something. We need mobs that act as a group, that use their own unique tricks and skills differently from any other mob in the game. We need them to be environment-aware and not just random spawn points around a map. Oblivion feels mechanical like a MMO. The reason is that no monster is truly unique and built as a single entity. It's just a database reference with different variables. All the game was generated through that system and the game reflects that. No modder could ever fix that because it's not the *use* of the database to not work well, it's the system itself that lacks versatility. You can "rearrange", but it's always the same game. The same gameplay.

As always the truth behind this is the same: there are no shortcuts.

Making (good) games is hard, takes time. Creating a monster, with lore, behavior and role in the game takes a whole lot of work. If you take shortcuts, because games need to be made within constraints of time and budget, then the result will reflect that.

But the problem isn't that players enjoy dumb combat against database references and so dumb combat is what you should give them. Don't learn the wrong lesson.

EDIT: I wanted to complete the concept. What I examined here is not specific to a MMO, but common to all games. It is more visible in a MMO because they are "stretched" single-player games. Right now no game company can afford to make 400 hours of gameplay. This is why a MMO dilutes the experience and uses other hooks to keep the players interested. The "grind" is just the revelatory feeling that comes from lack of actual gameplay. There are no shortcuts.

Too scared to talk, you cowards, all of you

Sat, 31 Jan 2009 07:57:11 -0800

Last on the list, official forums.

Once again I think another step in the wrong direction. Why? Ive always been for official forums. First to receive support and not talk to each player individually (as, usually, when problems exist they are experienced by many), second to quickly gather up to date infos that don't fit on a web page (servers going down, problems to connect etc..). Then obviously to get feedback from developers and discuss meaningfully the game.

I've explained the way I'd moderate it. Not tolerating spam and trolling. Not looking for manners or good disposition, but rewarding arguments, motivations.

There are two aspects that make obvious what Mythic's forums will really be.
1- Account levels that will allow Mythic to pick their favorite posters/friends/supporters and rail them as champions of the community
2- Developer feedback is a privilege, not a right

There all that is wrong. In order to discuss things and read what developers think, you have to be a privileged person who's passed Mythic's rite of initiation.

Mythic's dev feedback is too precious to be shared among customers. It is of a so high complexity and depth that enlightened players with access to it will have to sign yet another NDA that will forbid them to divulge the Sacred Words.

I hope you'll do nicely, with your fist of sand.

P.S.

I still also remain convinced that having official forums are not a guarantee of success for an MMO.

...Do you know where he may have possibly heard that official forums guarantee success for a MMO? In his head, you say?

P.P.S.
I laughed (but look at the screenshot down that thread if you think nothing could surprise you anymore). Developing a forum grind is some form of misunderstood genius.