Yes, I make computer games, but no, I am not a programmer

When mentioning that I make computer games professionally, probably 95% of people seem to assume that I am a programmer. Even people who I would consider "gamers" will, more often than not, make the same assumption. Apparently it is a common misconception that computer games are created solely through programming.

Perhaps this misconception is not unreasonable or entirely unexpected. Due to their complexity, computers, software, and by extension, games, are considered by many to be 'black magic'. So in the absence of a genuine understanding, the flawed conclusion is that the most readily identifiable IT professionals -- programmers -- must make everything.

Not to diminish the contribution of programmers, because it is significant and pivotal, but I wonder if the games industry does enough to clarify the processes (and jobs) involved in the production of computer games. Or for that matter, try to dispel the misconceptions of the general public.

So, when asked, I try to clarify what I do as a level designer. I also try to articulate the roles of artist, musicians, writers, actors, QA, business and PR people. Most people are astonished that games development requires such a diverse range of talents.

It would be nice to see more companies publishing "The Making of [insert game title here]", in a range of media formats, i.e. print, video and internet-based. The added benefit is that it might more broadly legitimise games development as a career and thereby serve in the future to attract a greater number of people to careers in the industry.

Insightful commentary about Fanboys

Adam Buchen's open letter to console and PC fanboys is an entertaining read, and a truism. No doubt a similar article could be written about game and game engine fanboys.

While it is great to see people who are passionate, blind devotion that flies in the face of logic and common sense is disturbing.

“At its best, entertainment is going to be a subjective thing that can't win for everyone, while at worst, a particular game just becomes a random symbol for petty tribal behaviour.” - John Carmack, id Software.

Thoughts about Battlefield 2

I was never particularly impressed with nor enjoyed playing the original Battlefield; in fact I felt disappointed with my purchase after playing the game both off- and online. Battlefield 1942 was one of the first games to utilise a wide range of vehicles, each of which were fun to drive/pilot, in open environments where players could move freely. I think that the premise was and remains good, but the game struck me as being a bit gimmicky. Primarily this was due to the game design, I suspect. It seemed to promote players aimlessly doing their own thing; in my experience, most people seemed to consider using the vehicles to be more important than the map's goals.

It seems that huge numbers of players did not share my disdain; the game and its "mission pack" Battlefield Vietnam, remain popular.

The release of Battlefield 2 I approached with a degree of trepidation. Sure the screenshots looked great and guaranteed that I would a least try the demo, but my concerns about the game play were still strong. I am pleased to say that the demo allayed fears, so much so that I bought the game the day it was released here in Australia.

It is clear that DICE were not content to simply update the graphics and make a Battlefield about modern warfare. Battlefield 2 retains all the things that made the original game entertaining and adds elements that ensure the game goals are now the primarily focus. I think this has been achieved through the utilisation of the following elements.

• The environments are more detailed and, as a result, include more cover thereby promoting a more diverse range of play opportunities.
• The placement and arrangement of control points relative to each other and the environment provides for more strategic play while ensuring that the battles that ensue for each control point vary from the others in the map.
• The maps are no longer huge for the sake of being so. The scale of each map seems to have been intentionally designed for game play.
• The Soldier kits promote specific sets of roles in the game but none seem, to me at least, like “lame duck” options.
• Voice of IP is very useful for co-ordinating a team/squad.
• The commander, when played well, can really ensure that team’s efforts are highly focused.

As a gamer and a level designer, I really like the environmental design. The maps have a definite sense of place which, when combined with the character and vehicle models, sound effects and lighting, really adds to the overall level of realism. Without resorting to depending on normal or bump mapping to ‘sell’ their game, DICE has used the talents of their level designers and artists to create believable environments that are central to the game play rather than decorations to complement it.

As time progresses and my experience of Battlefield 2 compounds, I may add more to this blog. But for the moment, at least, I am quite impressed with the game and congratulate DICE for converting a non-believer.

Kudos to Microsoft

Irrespective of what one might think about Microsoft and its business practices, I think they deserve to be commended for the way they are handling negotiations for the rights to make a movie based on Bungie's Halo. Apparently the deal is conditional on a number of significant requirements, but the most important from my point of view is Bungie retaining full creative control. (Refer to http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9444)

Movie adaptations of popular computer games have, for the most part, been very poor and, as a result, reflect badly on the franchise. It seems that too often the elements that made these games great fail to make it into movie adaptations. Notwithstanding the significant differences between interactive entertainment (i.e. games) and passive entertainment (i.e. movies), movie adaptations should involve more than repackaging the premise of a game franchise.

Mind you, I don't think that movie makers are solely responsible for the current state of movie adaptations. It seems to me that developers/publishers are too quick to sell off the rights to their intellectual properties. Apparently the various parties are just happy to make some more money, even if it means loosing creative control.

As the games development industry continues to mature, I am sure there will be a collective recognition of the inherent value of franchises and therefore the industry will be more proactive about protecting IP (intellectual property). So, kudos to Microsoft for protecting Bungie'’s creative rights! I hope this is the start of a trend, because it should be beneficial for everyone involved. Strong game ideas will have more earning potential, and hence, more attractive to publishers. Movies based on game franchises with better developed characters, more coherent stories, and consistent artistic vision should be more satisfying for movie-goers.

Pre-rendered game demos at E3

I must admit to being very impressed by the Killzone 2 trailer from E3 (http://www.gametrailers.com/gamepage.php?id=1668). It invoked a similar response to the one I experienced when Bungie released the first Halo trailers - I was seriously impressed and sold on the whole concept. The action, the detail and the effects just blew me away. Once again, I was ready to embrace the concept of FPS on a console. Moreover, the apparent power of the PS3 was impressive.

I own an XBox, but I am not a fan of FPS games on consoles. The screen resolution is too low (I want to see more detail) and I find controllers a very poor substiture for a keyboard and mouse. I think HDTV and the high specs of next-gen consoles should go a long way to remedy some of my concerns.

But is the trailer pre-rendered? Is my enthusiasm misplaced? Is the whole thing too good to be true? Regrettably, it seems likely that it is pre-rendered. (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/616/616591p1.html) :(

This is very disappointing and quite frustrating. I find the whole process of showing off games for hardware that is not even in production antithetical to developing trust in a brand. Release the specs? Sure, go right ahead. But please, please don't use a pre-rendered movie to indicate to me what your game might look like when its finished and the hardware is ready.

Postscript:
I'm not saying that every game for the PS3 shown at E3 2005 was pre-rendered. I have good reason to believe that some games, at least, were running on hardware designed to emulate the specifications/features of the PS3.

Advice to people wanting to "get into level design"

I am regularly asked for advice about “getting into level design” for computer games and thought, therefore, it worthwhile preparing this blog.

Everybody involved in game design learns and progresses at different rates – achieving the relevant skills and design sense may be very quick for one person, but it might be a more protracted process for another. I think the characteristic that is common to all successful game designers is a persistent and focused dedication to bettering themselves and their work.

So, if you are interested in “getting into level design”, here is a process that I would recommend.

1. Enjoy and appreciate the work of others. Spend time trying to identify why certain maps “work” while others do not. Look for the things that are common to all good maps and consider how you might include these elements in your work.
2. Study both the built and natural environment around you. It will prove to be an invaluable resource and source of inspiration. At the same time, appreciate and consider how the elements and principles of design are evident and/or utilised (see this page for a simple introduction - http://www.johnlovett.com/test.htm).
3. When starting out, think small. Don’t try to make an overly involved map – in terms of game play, scale or detail. Instead work on something that is achievable that you can complete in a reasonable time frame. You don’t want to become lost in the map. You will only become disenfranchised, lose interest and end up discarding your work to feel that you have achieved nothing.
4. Draw or sketch your ideas. Different people achieve this in different ways. I tend to draw or sketch when developing map ideas as it helps me to visualise the environment and space, and at the same time, consider any game play or performance issues that may impact on the map. A good friend of mine “sketches” his work in 3D using the level editor. He subtracts and adds brushes to investigate the game play space.
5. Have a good idea of the layout and game play flow for the whole map. This will reduce the chances of developing half the map and then realising that, a) you don’t know what to do with the rest of the map, or b) the rest of the map will not fit the sections already complete. Perhaps this should only be considered a guiding principle! There are times when allowing a map to evolve is very successful. ;-)
6. Don’t get too precious about your work and don’t be afraid to change it.
7. Test your work. Let your friends test it too. Listen to their comments carefully as, quite often, the subtle elements of their comments are the most meaningful.
8. Release your work to the internet. Try not to take the comments of others too much to heart. Regrettably there will be people whose comments are ill-considered and/or poorly phrased; it will be easy to take offence. Dissect what they say and look for the things that you can act on. But remember, comments about level design are quite subjective and, hence, it is not uncommon for some people to love the map and others to hate it. Yes, that is frustrating!
9. With each new map try something new – theme, game play or type, engine specific technology, etc. Push yourself outside your comfort zone.
10. Share ideas and experiences with other level designers and game artists.
11. Enjoy the design process.

Learning level design is an organic process the progress of which is dependent on the individual. Persist with and remain focused on the process.

Welcome

A start to what will inevitably be a collection of infrequent blogs. ;-)