Plutonic Musings

Bioshock V Half-Life 2

2007-09-23T08:26:00.000+10:00

It is not often that a first-person shooter is uniformly held in such high regard as Bioshock, and having just finished the game, it is easy to see why comparisons are being with between it and Half-Life 2. The inevitable question is: which is better?

Both demonstrate the kind of polish that is only found in games created by highly-talented teams with the time to devote and the dedication to making everything right. The art and environmental design suggest the involvement of many gifted and experienced artists and designers, which has led to game environments for both games that are believable, thereby creating a sense of place and presence.

While both games have strongly engaging game play, distinctive storylines and interesting characters, I believe that it is in these three elements where small differences between HL2 and Bioshock can be found and hence, from which the answer to my question can be determined.

As far as I am concerned, prior to Bioshock, HL2 was the benchmark for outstanding game play design. Its pacing is outstanding and the variation in game play dynamic means there is no opportunity for boredom. Put simply, HL2 was an exercise in juxtaposed game play. Tight, linear environments that mandate specific actions are separated by large, open environments in which there are many ways to succeed. Bioshock’s locale – the undersea city of Rapture – dictates a more traditional FPS game play space: generally smaller, tighter ‘room and corridor’ design. The brilliance is that, even in a confined environment, the design, in combination with the plasmids, allow for multiple ways to succeed. I don’t think I have ever pondered so carefully decisions about which weapons (i.e. plasmids) and ammo to utilise for a specific battle. There were even times when I replayed sections of the game after realising that a different combination would have led to a better outcome. Both HL2 and Bioshock are excellent examples of game play design, but I think that Bioshock is more distinctive and engaging.

The storyline of HL2, while simple, is well-constructed and unfolds throughout the game. Like HL2, Bioshock’s story unfolds initially from a point of uncertainty – “why is this happening to me?” At the outset, the storyline is reasonably straightforward, almost clichéd, but it soon becomes more involved, with an intriguing twist and even a moral decision. One becomes aware of the multi-threaded back story that both informs the game play and propels it forward. To my way of thinking, this is a significant difference between HL2 and Bioshock.

The representation of the non-playing characters in these games is, however, the ultimate point of distinction. The characters in HL2, in particular their mode of interaction with the player, are still unmatched. Their capacity for facial expression that is both believable and immediately understandable remains, almost three years later, unmatched. Bioshock’s design, on the other hand, generally prohibits direct interaction with other characters, but when this does happen in open game play (as opposed to in cinematic mode) the characters, bar the little sisters, lacked genuine facial expression and often stood in one spot, staring into the distance, delivering their speech.

As an overall game experience, I love both games, but found Bioshock slightly more compelling. My only point of hesitation about the game is that I found myself wishing that the few characters with whom I was able to directly interact were not to the same standard as the rest of the game and certainly well short of benchmark set by HL2.

2007 QSITE Conference

2007-07-08T08:52:00.000+10:00

Last week I attended and presented at the 2007 QSITE (Queensland Society of Information Technology Educators) Conference in Brisbane. My presentation focussed on my "Exploring Ancient Wonders: The Parthenon" project as part of the eLearning conference strand. A PDF of my PowerPoint presentation should be available from the conference site soon; in the interim, it is available to view from my EAW site.

From a personal and professional point of view, I enjoyed attending the conference. There are many innovative IT teachers actively engaging with, investigating, and exploiting the diverse range of pedagogical opportunities afforded by new technologies. I was challenged in a number of ways.

The implications and potential applications of Web 2.0 technologies to learning and schooling (as combined and separate contexts) are massive. It occurred to me that I had not effectively grappled with the significance of the 'social networking' and collaboration applications of Web 2.0 (thanks Tom March and Amanda Rablin). I have been challenged to consider how I might use these technologies more effectively in my professional and personal life. My del.icio.us bookmarks represent the start of this endeavour.

I was pleasantly surprised by the number of teachers interested in the 'games in learning' project. I was challenged by the various ideas and technologies being used. A number of schools have already begun embedding games study, planning and/or development in the curriculum. Lindy McKeown's research into Second Life as a professional development tool is very interesting; particularly, the utilisation of collaboration and social engagement in Action Learning. Indeed, the convergence of games-style technology and social interaction in virtual environments (Web 3.0?) is exciting.

Possibly the greatest challenge related to my own project work. EAW: The Parthenon had a very narrow focus - which was my intention, given the context in which it was developed. It is clear to me that future projects, on the other hand, need to incorporate social networking and collaboration.

Thanks to the organising committee and QSITE community for an excellent conference.

DM-Desperation released

2007-05-05T18:31:00.000+10:00

My latest map for HL2DM will be released in the next few days - check Plutonic Design for updates. Notwithstanding the surprisingly long time that it took me to get around to the finalising this map, I am very proud of it. Visually, it is quite distinctive from my other maps and, for that matter, anything that I have seen in the HL2 series.

Click on this image to view of widescreen wallpaper version of this image.

I increasingly find myself drawn to the artistic exploration of form and architectural style facilitated through level design. In this case, I was interested in art deco architecture as one of the periods when even industrial facilities possessed artistic integrity thereby making them aesthetically distinctive from their utilitarian cousins. I have tried to capture art deco's inspired use on contrast - contrasting linear with curved surfaces; and contrasting light-coloured, smooth materials with darker, more textured ones. I utilised contrasting environmental features, in particular the utilitarian forms of the drain and surrounding structures, to emphasise the collision of style between art deco buildings and more recent forms of architecture.

Preview of new HL2DM map

2007-03-16T06:32:00.000+10:00

I have almost completed a new HL2DM map, called Desperation. It is an art-deco inspired industrial facility that features an open outdoor environment surrounding the three sides of a tighter indoor area.

Note: this image is from a 'fast' build of the lighting. Other image can be accessed via my WWW site.

I plan to release this map soon.

DM Necessity

2006-11-18T06:52:00.000+10:00

A few months ago - okay, it was actually five months ago - I announced a beta for my most recent HL2DM map - DM Necessity. I am pleased to report that I have finalised and released the map!

More information and download links are available on my WWW site - http://www.planetunreal.com/plutonic/necessity.shtm

Masters Project

2006-09-16T14:04:00.000+10:00

I have been really busy since July developing a level to support the Computer Education Research Project subject that I am studying this semester for a Master of Education degree. I took the opportunity to combine two of my passions - teaching and level design - to develop a project about the Parthenon. My research question is: can a desktop virtual learning environment facilitate students’ appreciation and understanding of the features, scale and cultural significance of the Parthenon?

I have used UnrealEngine 2 Runtime to recreate the Parthenon in its original state (or near as I can make it based on available information, and within the limitations of the engine and the computers it will run on). I have created all the content, except for some of the photographic images of the Parthenon and its sculptures. There are still some elements that need to be polished and other "problems/frustrations" that are functions of engine limitations which I can not fix. The core functionality and environmental assets, however, are present.

Screen shots and the current beta version of the project are available on my WWW site - Plutonic Design. Comments and feedback would be appreciated.

Beta test DM-Necessity for HL2DM

2006-06-25T11:05:00.000+10:00

I have created a new map - DM-Necessity - for Half-Life 2: Deathmatch and would appreciate comments and feedback on a beta version before final release.
A tight DM map intended for 2-6 players set in a train station. The map features tight interconnected flow with opportunities for z-axis battles. More information about the map can be found at my WWW site.

The file is available to download. I would like to release this map before the end of July. Please feel free to provide feedback via the comments link for this post.

UT2004 map statistics

2006-04-08T09:35:00.000+10:00

I’m not sure exactly what made me do it, but this morning I went to http://ut2004stats.epicgames.com/ and checked on the online status of my UT2004 maps. RobotFactory, Metallurgy, Serenity and Conduit have together hosted a staggering 908,434.00 minutes of online game play – that’s over 1.7 years! My community maps – the maps that I created and freely released to the UT2003/2004 community – have supported a combined total of 225,756.40 minutes of online game play. Collectively, my UT2003/2004 maps have supported 2.16 years of online game play.

My involvement in the development of UT2004 remains one of the highlights of my career as a contract level designer. It is gratifying that, almost two years after its release, UT2004 is still being played ( seventh most popular online game according to Gamespy stats - http://archive.gamespy.com/stats/). It is profound to acknowledge that my maps have, in effect, been played for every second of that two year period. It is worth recognising that one UT2004 map, ONS-Torlan, is over 13 times more popular than all my maps combined!

For me, this information is evidence of the magnitude of online gaming as a form of entertainment. I think it is also testament to the value of including mod tools with commercial games. I suspect much of UT2004’s success is due to Epic’s overt and genuine support for the mod community through the availability and ease-of-use of UnrealEd.

In many ways the creative process is its own reward, but it is also gratifying to see other people gaining pleasure from one’s creative endeavours.

AS-RobotFactory - 340,923.4 minutes -http://ut2004stats.epicgames.com/mapstats.php?map=10
DM-Metallurgy - 283,203.6 minutes - http://ut2004stats.epicgames.com/mapstats.php?map=19
BR-Serenity - 47,865.4 minutes - http://ut2004stats.epicgames.com/mapstats.php?map=426
DOM-Conduit - 10,623.0 minutes - http://ut2004stats.epicgames.com/mapstats.php?map=1271

Games Reviews - the need to avoid the distinctly jaded perspectives

2006-01-29T07:30:00.000+10:00

Alan Dang from Firing Squad has written an interesting and valuable article entitled “The 5 Problems with Videogame Journalism” (http://www.firingsquad.com/features/problems_with_video_game_journalism/default.asp) that is well worth reading. More people in the industry need to devote time to reflecting on their role in it.

Online games journalism is simultaneously a gift and a curse for games publishing. Potential purchasers have access to numerous reviews which, in combination to online advertising, offers massive potential for publicity and marketing machines to raise awareness of any particular game. Regrettably, as Dang points out, videogame journalists write in less than ideal conditions and are increasingly failing to reflect the interests, experience and needs of gamers. As a result, reviews can be inappropriate tools for gauging the virtues of a game. Consumers of these reviews must be increasingly critical of what they read, thereby diminishing the value and original purpose of game reviews.

I firmly believe that over-valuing game reviews written by professional journalists is rife in the industry. Warner Brothers even have an overt policy whereby they analyse the collective of reviews by professional game journalists (at sites like http://www.gamerankings.com/) to determine if a game is successful and, more specifically, if a franchise has been successfully implemented (see http://www.looksmartbasketball.com/p/articles/mi_zdoup/is_200505/ai_n13462821). Warner Brothers even stated they would fine developers/publishers if the average score was less than 70%! I would hate to be in a position of developing a franchised Warner Brothers license knowing that most videogame journalists seem to have a significantly negative bias against games based on movies.

It seems to me ensuring a more balanced approach video game reviews could be realised via WWW sites that collate the opinions of gamers. These opinions could be gathered from multiple sources – blogs, forum commentaries and online polls to name a few – collated and analysed a professional journalist. It is noteworthy that many of the bigger sites include an average reader score, which I personally find highly beneficial. I would love to see a site developed where gamers could register to receive review copies of games in return for a written commentary and rating. Whether or not gamers are selected randomly from the registry or a system is utilised to recognise more “successful” reviewers, will depend on how important it is to avoid creating a new set of semi-professional game journalists. The obvious conundrum of a contributor reviewing too many games and consequently becoming jaded would need to be avoided.

By the way, I know Microsoft has tried a process like this before and public betas provide similar outcomes as well. I think that the increasingly popularity of blogs over the last couple of years suggests that it might be time to promote a review paradigm of the masses communicating with the masses (i.e. many reviews written for many readers).

iTunes Music Store is vGood

2005-12-28T08:43:00.000+10:00

A good friend of mine kindly gave me some vouchers for iTunes Music Store as a Christmas gift. Rather than buy whole albums, I decided to scratch a retro itch and purchase a collection of 80s songs that I loved as a teenager. The process of selecting the songs – listening to iTunes snippets, trawling the ‘net for information, and gazing into space awaiting for the name of a song to materialise from the segment of my brain that stores (evidently inefficiently) that kind of information – highlighted two things for me: the power of music and joy of iTunes.

As I sit here listening to my recently purchased collection of songs, memories and emotions from twenty years ago wash over me. Smiles come unbidden to my face in response to memories of friends, love interests (both realised and unexpressed), school, my family, and growing up. My recollection of the emotional intensity of being a teenager is surprisingly strong and quite pleasant to recall. At this moment I fully comprehend the value of these songs as the soundtrack to my teenage life. While these songs are no better or worse than many others, in fact some of them might seem quite ‘cheesy’ to some people, I don’t care; their connection to my past makes them invaluable.

What I think is brilliant about iTunes Music Store, aside from its effective functionality, is that most of the music from soundtrack of my teenage life is available to purchase as individual songs. I have created my own compilation album of the songs I loved – all original artists and performances. It greatly pleases me that the musicians who were responsible for giving me so much joy can still receive royalties.

I have continued to purchase the work many of my favourite artists from the 80s era – Sting/The Police, Mark Knopfler/Dire Straits, INXS, Peter Gabriel, U2, Ice House, Madonna, Pink Floyd. It is great to be able to purchase individual songs that were so important to the teenage me: Everybody Have Fun, Dance Hall Days, We Close Our Eyes, Wouldn’t It Be Good, What is love?, Things Can Only Get Better, The Heat is On, Addicted to Love, Don’t You Want Me, You Give Love a Bad Name, Owner of a Lonely Heart ,Love is a Battlefield, Do You Really Want to Hurt Me … ?, Rebel Yell ,White Wedding, West End Girls, Some Like It Hot, Another One Bites the Dust, Panama, You Can Call Me Al, Tainted Love, Road to Nowhere, All Night Long, Run to You … The hunt for the other songs that I loved continues.

Season's Greetings

2005-12-23T06:27:00.000+10:00

Ratbag gets a dose of ratsack

2005-12-21T06:15:00.000+10:00

I want to express my commiserations to the staff of Ratbag after Midway abruptly, and apparently without warning, closed the studio. Having only acquired the company in August, Midway has laid-off all the staff the week before Christmas.

As an outside observer who has nothing to do with either company, I can not escape the feeling that the purchase of Ratbag was ultimately about the acquisition of original IP (Intellectual Properties). Midway is either in serious financial trouble, or they had every intention to close the studio after the deal settled. For me, it seems that the later is entirely plausible.

As part of the acquisition, ten staff were offered shares in Midway’s common stock, but these were tied to performance targets for three years (refer to http://sumea.com.au/snews.asp?news=1839). Now that the studio has been closed, with comments from Midway about unsuitable quality levels, it seems that Midway gets to keep their stock and the relevant Ratbag staff leave empty handed. Note Midway claims that “these shares were determined to be compensation for future service". Bah Humbug!

This situation is deplorable and, although I hope I am wrong, seems quite underhanded. Add this to the list of “ten easy ways to acquire IP without paying the full asking price”.

It seems that Scrooge is alive and well in corporate America.

Big Room, Big Pile of Ammo and the Inevitable Boss Battle

2005-12-21T05:22:00.000+10:00

I must admit that I am a real fan of first-person shooters with a sci-fi theme. There’s something fascinating about the escapism promoted by sci-fi, particularly when the gameplay world is well-realised. For this reason, Quake II was one of my favourite games and I have been looking forward to a sequel (that Quake III was not). If you thought that Douglas Adam’s self-proclaimed “increasingly inaccurately named Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy trilogy” represented a confusing nomenclature, then be wary of the Quake series. Quake IV is the sequel to Quake II. Try not to think about it too much!

Not content to let a good brand lie, Activision/id Software have resurrected the Quake series, after resurrecting the Doom series, after resurrecting the Wolfenstein series. Yet another example of the game industry’s increasingly conservative funding policies. But that aside, Quake IV – developed by Raven - is an entertaining game.

The Doom 3 engine has been used to good effect, bringing the Strogg home world to life. Although predominately set in the interior of various Strogg facilities, the scale of the environments is much more varied than Doom 3, as is the general gameplay. As a level designer, I love the technical brilliance of the engine. It allows all levels to have lush lighting, dynamic effects, highly detailed textures and models, brilliantly clear positional audio and to generally ooze ambience (if, in fact, ambience can capable of doing such).

Raven have used the tools at their disposal to good effect. The NPCs have an important role in the story line and, thankfully, make a genuine contribution when caught up in battles. Although the NPCs seem to be highly scripted and can’t match the incredible life-like quality of the characters in Half-Life 2, they add to the game. I certainly felt that I was part of a larger battle.

The game play is fairly standard fare: kill lots of bad dudes, find a switch (in various guises) and proceed to the next section of the map. There is some variety with the inclusion of driving, and sections where you are required to act as a gunner on vehicle driven by another character. Don’t get me wrong; the placement of enemies, the structure environments and the location of cover and pick-ups is quite entertaining. But the perpetuation of a consistent gameplay mechanic, as evidenced in both F.E.A.R. and Quake IV, highlights the share brilliance of Half-Life 2.

My major gripe is the use of boss battles. I find this one of the most contrived game play mechanics, ever! Play a game that is engaging, immersive and fun because the variety that modern technology allows; then get locked in a room with a big dude that you have to shoot lots of times to beat. Where’s the fun in that? Many sections of the game effectively promote the suspension of disbelief, and then whole thing gets torn asunder by the inexplicable inclusion of a boss battle.

Yes, I know that boss battles have been a big part of computer games from way back when. I recognise that in the early days the simplicity of action computer games almost necessitated boss battles. But in the modern era do we need really to keep dragging out this worn and tarnished game play mechanic? I appreciate there might be an argument for the virtues of staying true to the history of a genre, but I can not appreciate the value of anything that interrupts the suspension of disbelief.

As an aside, what’s with the weird, breakdancing death animations of some Strogg? Ragdoll physics have removed the need to death animations. So why was I expecting every Strogg I shot to throw down a piece of cardboard before hitting the deck? Perhaps human-machine integration makes for 1337 b-boying!

After all the harping about the multiplayer prior to the release of Quake IV, I was expecting the next evolution of id’s Quake 3 multiplayer game play design. Wrong! If anything, the game play is more like Quake 2 than Quake 3. Regrettably, I find the map design uninspiring and frustrating given the engine’s capabilities.

Experiencing F.E.A.R.

2005-11-05T08:12:00.000+10:00

I completed F.E.A.R. a few nights ago. Monolith have continued to demonstrate their capacity to develop immersive and entertaining games with high production quality. Aside from one significant frustration, which I will address later, F.E.A.R. is an excellent FPS game that has made a significant contribution to the continuing evolution of the genre.

While many FPS games are enjoyable, that is, after all, why we buy them; F.E.A.R. also produces a genuine emotional response, which is rare in the genre. In many ways the potential and value of emotional engagement is yet to be fully released by developers. F.E.A.R., through an effective combination of great pacing, excellent use of ambient sounds and music as well as scripted incidences caught out of the corner of the eye, was able to create an emotional response. Uncontrollable shivers ran up my spine at least a dozen times while playing it and I experienced constant goose-bumps for the last fifteen minutes of the game. I can’t recall experiencing anything of this magnitude in any other game that I have played.

Combat is brilliant in F.E.A.R., due in large part to the excellent A.I. which is the best I have played against. Squad behaviour seems co-ordinated and battle sequences (bar boss-style sections) are different each time they are replayed. This suggests effective AI as opposed to heavy scripting. I just love the way the enemy soldiers talk to each other, even to the point of warning squad mates of your actions, “He’s flanking us” and “Flashlight”. The AI causes the soldiers to take cover, and under heavy fire, they will reach around a corner or over an object and blindly shoot. They will even knock objects over to create cover. Hit an enemy in the leg and he will hobble away looking for cover and yell for support. The arrangement of structures that can be used as cover and presence multiple paths through combat areas promotes considered strategy and requires the use of slow-mo.

Monolith’s implementation of slow-mo is the best that I have yet seen. On-screen distortion of geometry, colour and sound in conjunction with proliferation of particles makes for an intense experience.

F.E.A.R. multiplayer, while not offering anything new, is great fun. My initial impressions of the maps while wandering through them alone were mixed, but in a LAN environment, the game play and effects make for great fun. Melee attacks are an unexpected joy!

My only reservation for an otherwise brilliant title, relates to elements of the environment design. Aside from the combat areas, the environment design lacks some imagination. While the decorations are appropriate and the lighting is nice, the halls and rooms that connect the set-piece arenas lack variety, particularly in the Armacham building. The arrangement of connecting spaces is, at times, inconsistent with real-world environments. These sections are highly reminiscent of level design for old-school FPS where frame rate management necessitated the use of corners to reduce visible distance and therefore number of polygons that had to be rendered. As a level designer, this element of the game frustrated me. Monolith’s excellent "No One Lives Forever 2" had great environment design that consistently and entertainingly created a sense of being in the real world (including a very kitsch, 60’s style underwater secret lair). It is disappointing, therefore, that the areas connecting the combat arenas in F.E.A.R. are so pedestrian.

I suspect that pedestrian sections in the level design are the product of two factors: firstly, the engine technology and secondly the level design development model utilised by Monolith. The “Making of” video on the Special Edition DVD indicates that the level designers created the environments with only simple geometry so that they could focus on gameplay; decoration of the spaces occurred subsequently. I have used this development model professionally and I think it is effective for ensuring entertaining gameplay. The only downside, the evidence for which I can see in F.E.A.R., is that a level designer can become desensitised to which elements of the map need to be redeveloped. It is plain to see that the arenas and set-piece areas are well considered, but the connecting corridors are composed of relatively simple geometry with inexplicable floor and ceiling height changes; many rooms lack logical function or placement. To me this suggests either a lack of time to redevelop these sections, or more likely, a form of induced complacence whereby the level designer can no longer see that specific sections of the level need redevelopment. Now, don’t get me wrong, I applaud and have a lot of respect for the efforts of Monolith’s level designers – they have created a fantastic game. I am not being critical of thier efforts. My comment is instead concerned with identifying the only down-side to this development model. The solution to this problem, from my point of view, is to have one level designer create the gameplay and a different one decorate the map (there are some downsides to this suggestion that I will not go into here).

I do not, however, want to detract from the quality of F.E.A.R.. It is one of the premier titles of 2005 and will take its place as one of the great games in the FPS genre, due in large part of the gameplay and AI. Kudos to the Monolith team; they have created an entertaining game that does indeed induce fear.

Half-Life 2: The Lost Coast

2005-10-28T22:36:00.000+10:00

Valve had released the long-awaited "The Lost Coast", which is essentially a vehicle for showing off their HDR technology. While I was not particularly impressed by the use of HDR in Day of Defeat: Source -- in fact, I was quite disappointed -- the implementation of the technology is much, much better in "The Lost Coast". The effect seems more realistic and convincing, I suspect due to a more careful use of HDR. I particularly like the courtyard area and the interior of the monastery as the geometry, textures and lighting of these areas seem to best illustrate the virtues of the technology. It seems to me that the rate of the reduction of bloom as the player's virtual eyes 'adjust' to the light intensity, could be reduced. Nonetheless, this is an interesting technology. Let's hope it gets used to good effect, rather than as a good effect!

Mentioning the mundane

2005-10-01T06:21:00.000+10:00

Please feel free to make comments about my blog; I'm interested in reading your thoughts about the issues that I post. You will be asked to complete a word verification test. This is to defeat the increasing incidence of computer-generated spam comments.

I fractured my right arm this week. I guess I previously realised how dominantly right-handed I am, but now genuinelyly appreciate and understand the magnitude of this preference. Everything is happening so slowly. Additionally, it is abundantly clear to me now how all the level design and art software packages that I use require simultaneous use of keyboard and mouse. Aside from the pain of the break, some associated muscle damage and swelling, and the huge impact of having only one functional arm on daily life, the major frustration has been my inability to map.

Bloomin’ Heck

2005-09-23T12:32:00.000+10:00

Given its prevalence in recently released screen shoots for games across a range of platforms, High Dynamic Range (or HDR) rendering is the “new” normal/bump mapping. Eighteen months ago, normal/bump mapping was THE technology to have in games. Almost every game pushed at hard core gamers claimed to have it - publishers gushed, developers bragged and we, the gamers, salivated. In obvious obedience to Moore’s Law, rendering technology has moved on – THE technology to have is now High Dynamic Range rendering.

Don’t get me wrong – I’m all for innovation in rendering technology, particularly when it results in a greater sense of immersion. My concern is two-fold.

High Dynamic Range rendering will get over used. For the next six to twelve months we will be required to suffer through games filled with washed-out highlights (bloom) and high contrast environments that are less than realistic. Some developers will get it right, but most will just throw it in their games so that publishers can drop the appropriate catch-phrases in marketing materials. (Or worse still, some developers will be compelled by publishers to add HDR in place of other, more important gameplay features.)
The quality of the High Dynamic Range rendering effect is dependent on the resolution of the textures. Pre-rendered images that use highly-detailed materials with HDR look great (see DaikenTana composites of HL2 models with actual photos), but put HDR over lower resolution materials and the effect is lost. The sense of immersion is compromised due to a lack of detail/complexity in the material; the object in question just appears to be flat.

I’m sure that, in the long term, High Dynamic Range rendering will represent a valuable innovation, but in the short-term, I think that rendering technology needs to be more concerned with more effective materials handling, increased realism in lighting and atmospherics, and improved depth of field rendering. HDR, however, is and will continue to be THE technology for the next six to twelve months. Every highly lit texture, irrespective of the nature or condition of its surface, will bloom. Now, where are my sunglasses?

UnrealArt: gaming for art’s sake

2005-08-22T06:53:00.000+10:00

Alison Mealy, a UK artist and graduate student, has harnessed the bots of UT2004 to create art - http://www.unrealart.co.uk/. In this fascinating endeavour, bot paths are placed for a DM map and over the duration of a 25-30 minute game, the positions and deaths of the bots are recorded very second. The coordinates are then used to generate a large postscript image, with some interesting results - 1 and 2. The images represent a complex interaction between Alison’s placement of the paths and the artificial intelligence of the UT2004 bots.

It's Dark and Scary: A retrospective of Doom 3

2005-08-20T08:36:00.000+10:00

A few nights ago I took the opportunity to play through sections of Doom3 for a second time. I really enjoyed Doom 3 and it occurred to me, again, how unreasonably harsh some of the reviews/criticism of this game have been. While most reviews praised id Software for the quality of the engine, and the average on-line rating was quite good (88% - GameRaking.com), many subsequent comments about Doom 3 are critical of the gameplay to the point of downplaying the significance of the game.

Doom 3, unlike most games on the market, has a singular, well-honed gameplay focus – a dark claustrophobic experience designed to elicit an emotional response. Historically, designers of FPS games have tried to squeeze every conceivable gameplay element (gimmick or otherwise) into their games. One could assume that the purpose is to keep player’s attention and stop them from getting bored. The problem, from my point of view, is this can cause a game to be quite disjointed or, at the very least, inconsistent in its intent. For every game where this works – a al Half-Life 2 – there are many where it does not. It is regrettable, therefore, that game reviewers confuse the over proliferation of gameplay elements in a single title with good game design.

Every facet of Doom 3 has been designed to reinforce the intent of the game – an interactive, immersive and dynamic experience intent on scaring you. The introduction sets the scene and hints at the trouble to come. The tight, dark environment and the incredible positional audio promote tension and uncertainty. The dynamic lighting, detailed world (textures as well as decorative and character models) and physics promote a sense of reality and place. Even the surreal sections of the game serve to reinforce that something has gone terribly wrong.

Within this context, id Software designed, developed and implemented the core gameplay elements – enemies and player weapons. The core gameplay elements are, in my opinion, entirely consistent with the intent of the game, and yet, it seems that most reviews are critical of these very elements. For example, the enemy AI is often described as simplistic, but surely zombies and monsters intent on killing you would have a singular focus and would not, necessarily, exhibit a degree of self-preservation that most people equate to good enemy AI. Additionally, this is a Doom title and to be consistent with the genre, the game needs to feature hordes of enemies surging forward with reckless abandon.

The other criticism that I find painfully ridiculous in its ignorance of the game’s intent, is that the player can not hold a torch and shoot at the same time. Yes, the game would be easier if you could simultaneously hold a torch and shoot, but then, the one of the most significant fear-inducing elements would be lost. By way of explanation, imagine the situation where you are walking through a very dark section of the map, you see an alcove that is completely hidden in shadows. Your experience of the game to this point suggests that there might be something nasty hiding in the alcove. So, you are left with a choice, do you switch to the torch knowing full well that if there is a monster there it will take time to switch back to the gun? Or do keep the gun in hand and hope the alcove is empty? Or do you shoot into it just in case, and waste ammo? It’s a tough choice. If you had a torch “duct-taped” to your gun, this uncertainty would be removed from the game thereby reducing the some of the fear one feels while playing it.

I applaud id Software’s dedication to making a consistent and focused gameplay experience. Doom 3 isn't perfect and there where things that frustrated me - mostly boss battles - but it scared and thrilled me, which made it worth every cent.

"Hot Coffee" - attribute responsibility not blame!

2005-07-23T08:15:00.000+10:00

As a follow-up to yesterday’s blog, it now seems that some of the parties involved in either creating or criticising “Hot Coffee” are shifting their focus and trying to attribute the blame to modders. Can everyone say scapegoat?

It seems that the ESRB plans to revise its rating for the game at the centre of this fracas to “Adult”. As a result, the publisher has already revised down their earnings projections due to a potential loss in sales. So what started out as a developer/publisher saying, ‘it wasn’t us’ to avoid responsibility for a controversy, has suddenly become significantly more serious. The publisher is going to lose money and they will want to, firstly, blame someone, and secondly, implement policies and procedures to give their shareholders confidence that it wont happen again, i.e. making the EULA more strict by explicitly prohibiting modification and/or locking down the code and game content. Concerned third-parties – politicians, activists and commentators of various persuasions and degrees of knowledge – will bay for blood, commonly via the media. This will only serve to further inflame the situation without necessarily acting to assist in its clarification or resolution.

Now, I am not denying that the PC version of “Hot Coffee” has apparently been modified, but the fact remains that the core of the mini-game – code, art and animations – had to part of the original game. For the developer/publisher to lay blame for “Hot Coffee” on modders is cowardly.

I firmly believe that the modification of computer games is important and ultimately beneficial to the games industry. In addition to developing new talent and providing a testing ground for new game developers, it also represents a cost-neutral mechanism for testing new game ideas in the market place. Counter-Strike is a prime example of a modification that proved the commercial viability of a specific online, competitive multi-player genre. I dare say that the Battlefield 1942 modification “Desert Combat” proved to DICE, and its publisher, the commercial viability of a Battlefield game set in the modern arena – hence the development and release of Battlefield 2.

I don’t, by the way, deny that some modifications are highly questionable in terms of their mortality and worth as a mechanism for testing game concepts. I hold nothing but contempt for individual who modified “Hot Coffee” to make it even more explicit. In situations such as this, I firmly believe that developers/publishers have the right and responsibility to issue cease and desist orders to those involved. At the same time, the industry needs to proactively protect the role of modders and the mechanisms/tools for modifying their games.

In my opinion, the way forward from the “Hot Coffee’ controversy needs to be considered in a non-reactionary manner. My advice, for what it is worth, is as follows.

Developers/publishers need to ensure that their games do not include hidden code or mini-games that would affect the rating their game receives.
Developers/publishers should promote responsible modification of their games and, at the same time, protect their intellectual property and the integrity of their brand.
Bodies like the ESRB need to look at games more carefully before rating them. To reduce the time this takes, they could randomly play segments of each game they rate.
Ratings notifications need to be altered, where applicable, to include a clear statement that the game can be modified by downloadable content. This should not affect the rating of the game.
Parents of young children and adolescents should accept the responsibility of monitoring and being aware of their child’s gaming habits. A game given the ESRB M rating is not intended for 13 year-old children!

Reactionaries to “Hot Coffee” need to be countered and the responsibility for this fiasco needs to be attributed to the parties genuinely at fault – the developer/publisher. The blame game is irrelevant in the long term. Sensible and viable solutions need to be developed. These need to be concerned with the acceptance of responsibility by game developers, publishers, ratings bodies/councils, modders and consumers (and their parents, where applicable).

[Caveat: yes, I am baised in this matter. I am a modder, though I have NEVER created morally-questionable nor illegal content. My career as a professional level designer is a direct result of my work as a modder. I do, however, believe that accountability and responsibility should be central to the actions of both commercial game developers and modders alike.]

One step forward, two steps back

2005-07-21T19:56:00.000+10:00

In its struggle to be taken seriously as a form of entertainment, the games industry has weathered many fire storms of controversy. Often criticism of computer games – for example they lead to antisocial, immoral, violent or illegal behaviour – seem to be fuelled by ignorance and fanned by people with irretrievable biases. Members and supporters of the industry have spent considerable time fighting the fires of criticism. Making headway on this issue in the face of well-publicised, media-friendly sensationalism posing as logical criticism has been difficult, but some ground has been made. After a great deal of effort, the general perception of the games industry takes one step forward, then a completely avoidable controversy like “Hot Coffee” strikes and it is time to take two steps back!

I don’t want to elaborate on the nature of “Hot Coffee” except to say that it is a mini-game that is supposedly hidden in a product which has already drawn a lot of criticism for its content. The developer of the game denied they were responsible for “Hot Coffee”, suggesting that unknown parties had hacked and recompiled the code to create the mini-game. Reliable sources have argued that “Hot Coffee” was part of the original code because it can be found in the PS2 version of the game, which is, apparently, not modifiable like the PC version.

Computer games, like movies, are published for specfic segments of a diverse market. Supporters of the industry have emphasised that games are not meant solely for children. It seems to me that a significant proportion of games are developed for adults. Unfortunately, the misconception that games are meant for children has lead to problems of people playing games that are unsuitable. Ratings systems have been implemented to allow consumers to make reasonable judgements about the suitability of games. Therefore, consumers need to be able to trust rating systems.

The presence of “Hot Coffee”, if known by the ESRB (or its equivalent in other countries), may well have resulted in a higher rating. Assuming that the mini-game was part of the original code and the ERSB was not advised, the developer/publisher has acted very irresponsibly, to put it mildly.

Developers/publishers must accept their responsibility to consumers and declare or remove questionable content from their games. If a company wants to include confronting or explicit content in their games, they must be prepared to accept a higher-rating. I suspect that an “adult” rating has a negative impact on off-the-shelf sales, so most developers/publishers would try to avoid that rating. It is, however, highly irresponsible to hide confronting or explicit content in the game where ratings boards can’t find nor access it.

Try as I might, I can’t avoid the mental image of a design meeting where a staff member suggests, like a giggling, hormone-ravaged teenager, the inclusion a hidden mini-game about @*#$*# (insert smutty or immature idea here). This would be followed by equally immature laughter and testosterone-driven calls of agreement. The only problem is, the room is full of mid twenty- to early thirty-something men who should know better!

The games industry needs to stop being its own worst enemy.

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

2005-06-29T17:26:00.000+10:00

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

2005-06-29T06:53:00.000+10:00

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

2005-06-28T07:52:00.000+10:00

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

2005-06-12T10:03:00.000+10:00

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

2005-06-10T00:25:00.000+10:00

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"

2005-06-09T22:16:00.000+10:00

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.

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.
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).
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.
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.
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. ;-)
Don’t get too precious about your work and don’t be afraid to change it.
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.
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!
With each new map try something new – theme, game play or type, engine specific technology, etc. Push yourself outside your comfort zone.
Share ideas and experiences with other level designers and game artists.
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

2005-06-09T21:20:00.000+10:00

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