Naval Action - Finally The "Age of Sail" done right?

As a lifelong lover of pirates, and anyone who has ever seen an Errol Flynn film should be, and a keen naval historian and admirer of the feats of the "senior service" AKA the Royal Navy, I have always longed for a proper game to reflect these passions.

Some games addressed them directly, such as Sid Miers "Pirates" and some just had hints of action in them, like the Naval side of Age of Empires, but in recent times, other genres have taken over, and the seas looked a barren source of inspiration. Really "space" had taken over, with EVE and the recent return of Elite (amazing!) both offering the gaming equivalent of a life on the very very huge Ocean wave, but in space ships. I was looking forward to World of Warships when it launched recently, as a way to satisfy the oceanic naval itch, but while it looked great, and allowed some nice IJN action, and was actually quite fun it was FAR too arcadey for my taste.

Then an advert for Naval Action popped up on my Facebook feed.... So you see, sometimes these targeted ads DO work! And We DO want them! Intrigued I saw that advanced access was on offer, and after watching roughly 15 seconds of a video on youtube I was convinced! Steam key purchased I logged in, and got stuck in.

Naval Action (Website here) is an open world based multi player game, based in the Caribbean theatre in the Age of Sail. Starting in wee single mast ships you can trade, fight, mission or craft your way up up, playing as one of the many nations at play in the era, or as a heartless and stateless pirate. The ships available go all the way up to massive 1st rate Ships of the Line [SOL]; currently the RN's legendary Victory, flagship  of Lord Nelson and his doorway to Davy Jones' locker, and the might Santissima Trinidad of Spain. Seeing these behemoths in action will surely be something to see. I can say this safe in the knowledge that I haven't, but I HAVE been involved in some smaller PVP battles, with 3rd Rate SOLs and wow. Actually, make that WOW!

Naval Action's development team have absolutely got it right when it comes to the look and feel of this game. The sea is beautiful, and the ships are elegant, and the pacing is right. Open World sailing is greatly accelerated but in battle encounters everything slows right down ...and if you get your manoeuvring wrong in a 3 master, it wont just be slow...it will start to go backwards!

Once you have sailed / crawled /tacked your way into action, the jaws really drop as the boom of cannon fire and the incredible amount of smoke these weapons generated is faithfully recreated. If you are moving slowly, once you have fired a couple of sighting rounds, you will no longer be able to actually see the enemy, so you can fire a broadside only to find the enemy had turned away. In small fleet actions seeing smoke billowing everywhere, and flashes of guns within the smoke is magical and if you are unlucky you will also see a  hail of cannon balls coming towards your ship and turning it into matchwood with flying splinters and the odd falling mast. Sails turn into tatters; the bosun's whistle sounds and the crew cheers when I took down an enemy mast was really rousing!

The battles are great fun whether solo versus the AI or teamed up with one or two allies doing AI missions, or in small or larger PVP fleet balltes (or indeed fleet battles vs AI) and the game also allows you to trade from port to port, explore if you fancy and craft ships and upgrades. It promises a power political meta game, economy and of course PIRATES! What more could you want?

All in all it was an incredibly immersive experience, and finally the Age of Sail seems to have been done right. Anyone who is a fan of the period should get involved. The game is officially about to launch at the end of this week I believe and I would like to wish the development team all the best with the launch and the games further development.

Turn Based Squad Games…Where did you g (0 action points remaining)

Back in the day, I loved a good turn based squad tactical game.

On my BBC model B, my favourite game, (after Elite of course) was called “Paras” or something, a basic but entertaining hex based squad game. This was followed by a few others, until X-Com arrived with a bang, and was followed up by sequels of ever increasing complexity, and ever diminishing fun. Why was X-Com the peak? It was a loooong time ago. Even now, the return of X-Com being mooted is as an FPS?! Have they not noticed we aren’t exactly suffering from a lack of shooters?

The only thing turn based at the moment is JRPGs it seems, which are a hellish 1 button clickathon, of grinding time sink intensity, and something which has never really appealed to me. My recent search turned up laser squad Nemesis, by the author of X-Com no less, but even that was very dated, with limited options. Why can’t we have a fantastically modelled, physics enabled, great sounding and looking turn based squad shooter (be it soldiers, space marines, or mechs!) for the 21st century? Am I just living in the past? Am I the only person who enjoys these games?
There are a bunch of RTS games out there that would be good, but are so hurried due to their real time nature, I can’t relax and actually enjoy watching and playing them. For example the Warhammer Dawn of War, and Company of Heroes titles both looked very interesting, but the hectic real time nature of them turned me off. I want to enjoy seeing my little men run about shooting stuff, not fracture my wrist desperately lassoing troops and whipping all over a tiny map.
I like something I can take my time over and enjoy, at my own pace, not whatever the designer has decided is correct.

Perhaps the resurrection of smaller simpler games, being created for and played on smart phones and devices like the iPad will bring about such a second coming? I for one hope so.

My dad has bought an iPad and we had a great time joining the legions of Angry Bird fans out there. Simple, crisp graphics, a clear task in hand (literally with an iPads touch screen) and fantastic sound design, which had us both laughing our heads off. Boy, those birds really are angry. We also tried Flight Control HD which was a relaxing and new experience, which although it got hectic as the planes started to swarm, really showed how the touch screen interface defines the game. After all, you are simply drawing paths live on the screen. Often with two hands at the same time.

Such interface creativity will be the key to the success of devices like the iPad and indeed Kinect. As creators grasp what is possible with a new array of options, an audience is waiting for them. And as my dad has proved, it might be an audience they have NEVER interacted with before.

I’m excited to see what develops, and in honour of turn based squad games, I have 2 squad members keeping the iPad and Kinect on overwatch.

Glad Tidings of Mechanised Joy! Steel Battalion 2011

How I rejoiced yesterday with the discovery on my return from holiday in sunny Beirut, that Xbox 360 would see the long awaited sequel for Steel Battalion, one of the all time great games.

Yes Steel Battalion, the game with THE all time great controller, a thing of awe and beauty, and extreme difficulty.

Not only that, but it will be a dedicated Xbox kinect title, which will be very interesting. Will it be the first super 'hardcore' game designed for kinect?

Many people think this will mean waving about shouting "missile!" but as a mech pilot myself, I am almost sure it will mean a game which fully integrates the standard controller with the possibilities offered by Kinect.

Think about it. The original SB controller had about 5 joysticks and 348 buttons. What better way to replicate the joys of controlling a mech than with an xbox controller PLUS all the input options that kinect will offer....

Shouting commands ("EJECT!!!") while moving your body to physically control the mech, and using the joypad to control aiming and subsystems will be awesome! It will however make my wife think I am a total nutter, but that's a price I'm willing to pay, plus she probably already thinks that anyway.

The preview video I watched (Here) shows trademark Steel Battalion dull graphics, for a real 'lofi battlefield visuals' feel that the original Steel Battalion so effectively used. I hope that From keep the lumbering mech feel, and not the speedy Jap style Armoured Core bots they may be used to.

I hope that the game can keep true to the Steel Battalion "real mech pilot sim" identity, and become a show case for kinect for hardcore gamers. The ability to feel part of the action, which is what Steel Battalion achieved so effectively originally can only be enhanced by an imaginatively utilised kinect and joy-pad combination.

My only hope is that From, the developer, have learned the lessons from the almost awesome Chromehounds, the only good mech game for Xbox 360 so far, and make the online play fair and FUN. The amount of lag, disconnects, and general tragic nature of the online code, meant that the Chromehounds experience was totally marred by frustration and time-wasting.
While Japanese games can be great for originality and character design (not to mention MECHS!) they have often let the side down in terms of UI and netcode / multiplayer options. Compare the hell of Chromehounds with Halo or COD multi player for a stark contrast.

I cannot wait to recreate the multi player fun we had in Chromehounds (well, sometimes, when it actually worked. I don't think we EVER achieved a full 6 v 6 game, in 2 years of trying) in an even more awesome Steel Battalions environment, with better controllability and a more heavyweight feel.

Lumbering tanks are kings of the battlefield...honest!
Go on the US Army, you know you want them....

Hollywood? No Cricklewood! Games big & little brothers...

Having just read N’Gai Croals latest missive in Edge, ‘Hollywood Blues’ I was struck by the oft heard “Games are bigger than Hollywood” idea that he reflects on. Sure the big ticket items such as Call Of Duty, Modern Warfare 2, or GTA (or even now Red Dead Redemption) can be put up against the best of Hollywood, both in audience numbers, mainstream advertising, and pure sales figures, not to mention production costs, but is it an appropriate comparison otherwise?
I think not. The above titles point to filmic action, great visuals, immersive soundscapes and often long, convoluted (and often rubbish, just like the Hollywood blockbusters!) scripts.

However that is not the games industry, or games for that matter. If we are comparing games to other media and we take some games to reflect Hollywood, then we need to look at the other “Games what I wrote” that don’t have $100 million dollar budgets, or killer marketing backup. Most games are done on a tight budget, with few staff and tough deadlines. Portable titles, PC casual games, Xbox Live Arcade and indie titles, and Wii and PS3 downloads all churn out product. Facebook is an ever increasing market for small games (well big ones too, if you look at the numbers playing Farmville and Mafia wars) and the iphone and the Elysium that is the iPad look to provide new platforms for games too. These are all relevant parts of the ‘games industry’ and often the parts that provide consumers with day to day contact too.

The blockbusters might be a summer or Christmas treat, but more often it’s the nibbles and day to day play on a PC or on the bus or tube that people engage with. You can see (possibly) what I’m getting at. Cherry picking Hollywood as games rival (“oooh! We’ve beaten them! Yaya!”) is one thing, but I think we need to remember that the visual medium is dominated by television and not Hollywood.
Television has expanded massively over the last few years, with the creation of many new channels on satellite and cable, all desperate for content, working to tough deadlines and budgets, and facing the threat of a democratised technological production medium. Television studios are under threat, scrabbling for ad revenue, and attention amid the ever growing number of rivals for consumers eyes and pockets. Games are but one rival, as is on demand internet TV and internet browsing / facebook etc in general.

The games industry is in a state of growth and flux, and is the least “settled” of any of the visual media, even though the others are all threatened by the march of technology. Even while it boats of growth, many games studios are going bust, cutting staff numbers or struggling to survive. The ‘pipeline’ of production is still not really fixed or uniform. The tools used to create titles are still not really adequate. There is no well developed “3rd party outsourcing’ for video games as a support industry. These support facilities are developing, sure, but not common, and nor is the idea of using them a lot accepted as part and parcel, except maybe for some localisation or testing, or to get art assets. Many are small companies or individuals. The wheel is still being developed and reinvented a lot of the time. None of this is a criticism, as the games industry is dealing with tech that is still evolving at an incredibly rapid rate, and getting a feel for a market that no one fully understands yet. In fact the consumers too aren’t fully developed or understood.

It’s my generation that are the first generation of gamers, who are now developers, and we are being constantly amazed by what’s possible. The ‘youth of today’ (how I love that expression!) will grow up to be the first “wired” generation, used to being online and in touch all the time, so who knows what they will come up with (or what tech they will have available? 3D vision, non physical controllers, time-travel!!??)
Perhaps gamers and industry people need to think a little more broadly than just beating Hollywood at their own game, and start to try and think of how to compete with television, in everyone’s lives, every day. The variety of TV (big ticket dramas, sports, throw away serialisations, kids cartoons, gameshows, music TV etc) reflects games more accurately, and this is where comparisons should be drawn more regularly.

N’Gai finishes with the proverb “may you live in interesting times” and I think this certainly applies to games. The question is, will games recognise the world they are in, as well as the times?

A Curriculum for Game Audio

A Curriculum for Game Audio

Chair:
Richard Stevens, Leeds Metropolitan University
Panelists:
Dan Bardino, Creative Services Manager, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Andy Farnell, Author of Designing Sound
David Mollerstedt, DICE - Sweden
Dave Raybould, Leeds Metropolitan University - UK
Nia Wearn, Staffordshire Univerity - Staffordshire, UK
Me!

Just attended the AES London convention on Monday and took part in the panel discussion on the IASIG (Interactive Audio Special Interest Group) Game Audio Curriculum.

As you can see we had a good panel, and me as well! It was good to see Dan again, as he always brings a great deal to these talks (well he did at the Pinewood TIGA talk) with humour, clarity and insight. David brought Swedish deadpan humour and well thought out comments, not least of which was when asked what theoretical research he would like carried out replied he wanted to do research into consumer feedback about Game Audio. Do people actually care and so on? A point delightfully answered moments later when the panel was asked to name their favourite ever game audio, and Nia said she generally plays without sound…hahaha! (admittedly she said it’s mainly DS type stuff on a bus)

Great comedy timing though.

Further to the research idea, Dan asked a very good question when we had retired to the pub for further discussion…. How many people are actually employed directly in “Game Audio” in the UK..? The answer we came up with…not very many at all! The studios have pretty small numbers (2-5 maybe) in permanent employ, and they have a core of outsourcing resources they use (e.g. Side, for example). Two to five may sound reasonable, but we are talking about Sony and EA studios here, among the bigger players out there…

Aside from that somewhat gloomy note, the discussion touched on many interesting things.

Chief among them maybe was the very fluid situation game audio and game audio creation is in. The curriculum would have a hard time being definitive, as actual working practices are in no way currently fixed. Nor are the tools used. Universally they were deemed to be not up to scratch yet, but steadily improving. On the plus side, the actual field of ‘Game Audio’ was held to be an exciting and innovative area of audio development. The tools and methods are ‘up for grabs’ and the flexibility of purpose and implementation is to be admired. For example Film and TV have many fixed rules and techniques, which can be ignored in game audio design. Now sometimes this is not for the better, but at other times it opens things up and puts a new and exciting spin on things. It’s as if new questions are being asked (often for the first time) and because of that there are no “set answers” yet.

The discussion highlighted how rapidly things were moving forward as many of the points raised (for example discussions about the roles of Audio implementers and the balance between creative and technical ability) hinged on past definitions or past technical limitations. Whereas old game audio delivery systems often had extremely limited technical delivery capacity, which called on a fairly deep technical understanding of the limitations and how to get around them, modern consoles and PCs often have enough oomph to let the audio team worry about the quality of content rather than the actual capacity to deliver it.

Dan, Dave and I were uniformly in the “creative” camp as the prime asset of a modern game audio employee. Technical skill, without the commensurate desire to make things sound great and above all to fit those sounds into the feel of the game in question, was of limited value.
With the modern team ethos of Video Game creation, a lone tech hero was infinitely less valuable than someone who can communicate effectively with the larger team around them, and not just the audio team. The creative lead, and programming, design and art teams must all be effectively communicated with both to help create and then to ensure smooth delivery. Mind you the lone hero will always have a role somewhere I am sure, possibly in smaller teams or teams designing for portable / limited delivery systems, such as the burgeoning mobile market.

It’s good to think that game audio is still very much on a steeply upward curve, with a lot more to come, and seeing guys like David and Dan, I’m sure that EA and Sony are in good hands! Both are looking for constant forward motion, and as tools improve, and people get their heads around what can be done, I am sure we will be seeing a lot of interesting things happening. For one thing, the panel noted that the new wave of gaming interfaces (Sony Move, Xbox Natal, etc) could inspire a whole new field of control systems and audio feedback and input, with voice activation and recognition something that could have a real impact on game immersion and involvement (and looking silly potentially).

Visions of sitting in darkened rooms shouting Dive! Dive! Dive! at the screen while depth charges pound your 5.1 “sub” woofer spring to mind (pardon the unmissable pun opportunity)….

The IASIG draft curriculum doc can be downloaded from the IASIG website:
http://www.iasig.org/wg/eduwg/index.shtml

Games Meet Film @ Pinewood Studios

OK, its not my usual awesomely witty title, but I was inspired to put keys to virtual paper after attending the initial TIGA organised symposium at Pinewood studios. An interesting and talented panel discussed audio (which as we know is all too often ignored or marginalised) in respect of the differences between the media of film and games.

The panel gave a lot of interesting feedback and I was really struck by the diference in basic attitude towards audio, and its purpose. The less powerful, more 'real time creation' restricted game developers still generally saw audio as a task to achieve, and to try and represent reality as closely as possible, whereas the long established, linear and time un-restricted film guys saw audio as something which should add value to the project, in terms of emotion and 'total package' presentation. It shows just how far the power of consoles etc has to go before restrictions in implementation stop affecting the bottom line in terms of creativity. However on the flip side, the restrictions have created some awesome audio tooling, such as granular synthesis and modelling, as demonstrated in terms of "car audio" by Jerry Ibbotson of Media Mill, whose car synth was a tool which should be used by sound designers everywhere, rather than crying as they realise the picture recut has made mincemeat of their carefully recorded car audio.

Trying to do everything in as expensive a way as possible, i.e. by recording actual vehicles doing what they are actually doing on screen might be great, but such synth tools can either give cheaper options OR provide back up to cover potential recuts etc. Also such synth tools should start slowly replacing the sound FX libraries that so many sound designers rely on the world over in TV, film and so on.

The panel discussion reinforced my belief that the game audio world is so obsessed with re-creating reality (as game visuals have been doing for so long) that the idea of NOT recreating reality but creating audio thats adds value to the game, either via emotion, 'colour' (a funny word for audio but hey, maybe I should say tone?) or audio pointers that highlight particular things on screen (or off via surround etc) is often missed.

The combination of the 'core values' of the movie audio guys (or other pure audio guys such as myself) can be added to the tech skills and innovation of the game audio guys to create truly great audio, both in terms of quality but also in terms of cost savings, controllability and real time generation and immersion. By those core values I mean emotion and adding value to a project. Just representing what is seen, at a lowest common denominator level (the much mentioned 'footsteps' in the talk) really reduces audio to something which is seen by all too many people as just a layer of gloss which isn't that important. People in the know, know that audio can be so much more. In an ideal world, audio should be held to be as important or nearly as important as sight/video, but in the video game world, far too often that patently isn't the case.

Partly, as the talk helped show, that is due to technology and budgets, but also I feel many of the higher echelons of video game creation don't have an experience of great audio and what it can do. Having honed their careers in early video game creation, where systems power really limited audio (from the early days of bleeps, then general midi) they don't believe in audio as a valued asset, that can really make (or too often break) a game. And as such they deny it a place int he creation of a game, from its inception onwards. Again, game studios often only have an audio programmer or sound designer on staff, which means by default audio is left out of planning, until the project is well under way.

Perhaps that will slowly change, and of course, this isn't they case in all developers. A great many are beginning to deliver fabulous audio experiences, but for those that do all too often they are followed by too many that don't. I personally have seen far too many games which claim to want to deliver an emotional journey to the player (and "make them cry", as the line goes) being delivered by appalling voice actors knocking out a weak script, which make Eastenders look like Shakespeare.

In fact this latter point brings up another important difference, again highlighted by the Pinewood sessions. In film (and music) the audio treatment BEGINS with the voice, and the whole audio soundscape is built up around it. After all the actors are delivering the narrative that drives the film, and provide the information the viewer needs. In game too often it is only just another piece of the jigsaw, and yet with the player often the avatar controlling the game, understanding and emotional involvement is crucial. Not only that, but one has to assume the player is human, and as such will respond to the human voice in a very direct way

The Pinewood session ended quickly with loads left to discuss and I look forward to the sequel.
However it has definitely fortified my belief that games need to take audio more seriously and a way of doing this is to recruit and use audio staff who have developed outside of video games.

Pre-Production, Don't take the P, drop the re!

Moving on a little from playing actual games, I want to talk a little about making them, in an audio context.

Audio is a much overlooked element in many forms of media, noticed when exceptional, or in fact more often, underwhelming. Games are no different, and in many respects, especially the underwhelming ones, are often lagging a little behind the film and TV world.

Audio is often seen in games as aural 'paint' to be applied after the process of game making is complete. Do the basics, make the guns go bang, make the footsteps echo, and make the characters talk a bit. Well audio can do a lot more. Audio is inherent in our lives, providing feedback and verification of what our eyes can see. "I don't like it, it doesn't sound /feel right!"
Let's not forget that while our eyes can look forwards, its our ears that are the true 360 degree sensors. Also can you see in the dark? No, but you can hear even better. These 2 situations are common in games, and could be used even better if audio was part of the creative process.

Its easy to be thrown into the uncanny valley by poor audio, either by missing or misusing a layer of environmental sound, or by the fact a character sounds just plain ridiculous!
How many poor scripts and voice recordings have spoiled games you played?
Just the awful voice-overs stopped me playing a game I had actually been looking forwards too a long time, Jade Empire, for one example.

My exposure to some game industry work has left me a little surprised at the lack of involvement of audio in the pre-production process of game creation.

Often studios lack an audio lead, or audio director, who can link the audio team to the creative leads of the title, leaving the audio team in the dark, and leaving the creative team with no input early on from the audio team as to what the soundguys (and girls if there are any out there!) can offer.

Integrating audio at stage one is essential in my opinion, and can offer a wealth of creativity and originality to a title, as well as saving on production costs or possible dead ends later on.
Now games aren't the only media guilty of the "we'll do the audio afterwards..." methodology by any means, but it seems to be the dominant approach in the games industry, with some notable exceptions.

Modern consoles can now pack the processing power and storage capacity to enable top quality 5.1 sound, and a variety of teams have shown what great sound experiences can be delivered.
It's up to the industry at large to try and integrate audio more closely into the creative evolution of a title.

Not much humour here I'm afraid, but as my title so confusingly puts it, investing in audio as part of pre-production can save a lot of wastage and re-production at a later date. Not only that practical enhancement, but the overall quality fo a title can be much improved with an original and coherent sound scape, rather than the same old last minute bangs.

“You’re not the boss of me!”

Difficulty in gaming. An oft discussed topic nowadays, and perhaps relating to the “ageing population” of gamers, who suddenly find what with adulthood (and in the case of many of my friends, childhood, just not theirs!) and work and so on, gaming time is a little restricted.

What might have been seen as a challenge a while back, has now become an irritating sticking point, blocking progress. Also in terms of actual skills, a hardcore gamer will dedicate time to a title and really “settle into the groove” of both its visuals and its control layout and responses. Picking up a game after time away really shows you how much you learn by experience while playing. It’s no coincidence FPS’s are ‘pwnage zones’ as well practised players put the smack down on ‘noobs’ and rookies. EVE online too, the space based MMORPG, and in my eyes, one of the best games ever made, was ruthlessly ‘elitist’, where veterans often made mincemeat out of new players, even if the newbies had better equipment or outnumbered the veteran players. Even good gamers usually suffer a little when they switch to a new title. Thus our new ‘old timer’, part time gamers (like me!) don’t have the time to really soak up the skills for a new title, when they just manage to play it in small time compressed chunks. We never really get over the rookie hump, and into “the zone” of the new title. Of course, this initial learning period can be half the fun of a new title, especially when you get the satisfaction of realising you have cleared the “rookie hump” and are now the one handing out the pain. The satisfaction of gaining new skills and “making the grade” may explain why people move onto new FPS titles so often….


While progress can still be made even by amateurs, it’s often when bashing into what has often ruined a game for me, the “BOSS” that everything grinds to a halt.

A notable case in point for this was in a title I actually really enjoyed (and aside from the BOSS HELL) would highly recommend, Conan on my Xbox 360. The slashing sword fighting was great fun, with a real visceral control and feeling of achievement. I slogged through to the end, defeating some huge bosses at the end of each level (often with great difficulty and multiple retries…. In fact I nearly gave up at about 3 of the bosses, but carried on doggedly, as I enjoyed the mainstay fighting so much).

I was playing on hard level, which I often do as I don’t like to ruin a title by revealing everything dashing through on easy. I enjoy a challenge, so I hope this entry doesn’t make me look like a whiner! I don’t mind dying as long as I’m enjoying it! Anyway, after I completed the game, I immediately started a replay…Not a chance on the hardest setting after ‘my boss hell’, but actually a level easier. What do you know, the sword play was still great fun, and the bosses were a cinch. I still got to enjoy their grandeur, but actually got past them quickly and without being reduced to tears!

Now why was the “hard” setting seemingly exactly the same, except for the bosses having 3x the health, and just making them into an immense pain. There was no difference in the victory technique required; you just had to do it over and over and over again. I was terrified at even the thought of the bosses on the most difficult setting. My question is what do some designers think they are achieving by adding ridiculously difficult bosses in, especially with the growing trend of having them being defeated by QTEs (as indeed Conan features in some places)? OK the great graphics and sense of scale or menace is introduced, but rather than crushing the player, they should help him feel heroic and special, after achieving victory and moving on. If you want to use QTE's, why not make a success be an awesome kill, and some failures an ever more mundane and struggling one. Let the player see a cool Beast / Mech / Demon / Wizard / Mafia Don death of some kind, and move on!

I was reading NGai Croal’s piece in this month’s Edge, and was inspired to write this entry. I totally agree with his idea of “on the fly” changeable difficulty. If one part of game is annoying me, the customer / player, why not give me the option of making it a little easier? I especially liked his “drop difficulty level down one, for one checkpoint” idea. Perhaps it could even be handed out as a ‘reward item’ which could be used only a few times, to keep a sense of challenge for the player…. After all if I can only use it a few times, I might just try and beat this bit a few times first……

Anyway, little blog entry over. I bought the game, so I should be the boss!

Close Combat – In Praise of Modding!
Well my state of the art Xbox 360 is back doing it’s original job, streaming video to my TV. For gaming I have returned to my all time favourite game (possibly juuuust ahead of Eve Online), the Close Combat series, in this case, Close Combat 5. The series, a top down tactical / strategic game set in World War II first came out in 1996 (yes over 12 years ago!) and is still unbeaten today. It was the computerised equivalent of much loved tactical board game, Avalon Hill’s Advanced Squad Leader. Now in one player mode, the game is quite fun, but stupidly easy. However, the game comes alive head to head, as a human rival makes the game a thrilling and tense duel, like chess but with heavy artillery support, and psychological damage.
The beauty of Close Combat is that it models real combat, taking into account troops experience, equipment, physical state and most importantly of all, their mental state. Rookie troops, surrounded, low on ammo, out of contact with allies and under heavy fire won’t do much other than cower and scream, and if you are unlucky, just surrender. No Tank rushes, no confusing weird sci-fi weapon sets (well not if you know your WWII history) no production or bases to take care of or build. Just a tactical struggle to the bitter end.

Currently my long term opponent, (my brother) and I are engaged with Close Combat 5 (released in 2000) which via the use of mods is enabling us to fight the WWII campaign from start to finish. We have completed Meuse 1940 mod, which shows the German Blitzkrieg into France, and Stalingrad, which moved us from the fields of France to the bitter house to house fighting on the Eastern Front. Both were harsh losses for me as the Allies, where we caused significant casualties but couldn’t turn the tide of battle against our Nazi foes. However for the first time, the Allies are on the front foot as we play the SDK (Stalingrad Der Kessel) mod, which replicates the Soviet ‘Operation Uranus’ offensive from the 19th of November 1942 through to the end of December. The campaign is well suited to a back-story both in history, and one created by my brother and myself, as propaganda flows back and forth, and the game allows heroes of legend to be born and tracked (and unfortunately, often to die horribly). Currently, our alter egos, German Field Marshall Hans “Choco” Liebnitz, and his Soviet counterpart, General Lebedev of the Marines, (a promoted survivor of Stalingrad, appointed to raise morale after the terrible politically inspired leadership of Commissar Ivan C U Znaipov) are engaged in a titanic struggle, now nearing the end of November.

In the future, we will move on to the Western front, with the Gold Juno Sword (GJS) mod, on D-Day, march up the coastline with the Scheldt mod, suffer a counter attack with the Battle of the Bulge mod, strike to end the war early with a “Bridge Too Far” Arnhem mod, and then finally fight at Kursk and in Berlin. All this is possible thanks to fans and committed coders and mapmakers who create these amazing mods, (often far better than the original game, pace the creators!) and keep creating them.
The audio alone in SDK is amazing, and often inspires terror or elation as one hears the beginning of a Stuka raid, or HQ radios in the availability of an artillery barrage, or just relief as a sergeant tells me that Pvt Sulebovskiy is rallied and ready for duty.

So I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the modders out there, of all games, who show such creativity, and who inspire humble gamers such as my brother and I to new heights. SDK’s realism has taken the propaganda war to new heights, and I hope I can publish some of our exchanges below (once I figure out where I can host the PDFs). These add significantly to our enjoyment, and I firmly believe that ‘story driven’ is not necessarily the aim, but ‘story supported’ can only be good.

Initial Day 19 and 20
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1063813&da=y
Days 22-24
http://www.keepandshare.com/doc/view.php?id=1063814&da=y

Fable 2 - The delayed review!

OK. So it's 2009. You may have noticed that some time has passed since my ‘just prior to buying Fable 2’ post. Well I bought it, I played it and I enjoyed it. That’s the summary. Now let’s have a little more detail. First of all I went into the game with a vision. A character I wanted to be, and to see how the game let me deliver the character. I wanted to be an ‘east end gangster’ type. Loved in my hometown of Bowerstone, (because I was kind and generous) and hated and feared elsewhere in the kingdom. I would be handsome to start, with good gangster family values, but a womanising badboy when out of town.

All went well, aside from very worrying initial doubts, when after playing for a while, I thought to myself, “Hang on. This game is boring! What’s so great about Fable 2? All I’m doing is being a blacksmith!” Then the game began to charm me. My character developed. I bought a house and got married and had a child, (verrry evil!) and Gargoyles began to abuse me. After being held captive (SPOILER ALERT!) for a decade my character became even more evil, not to mention a sex crazed alcoholic fat killer. Wow! Fable really let me do it. Gaming fun and I never really felt compelled to act contrary to how my character, as decided pre-game, should act. The sound again lived up to what I expected, although my gaming conspirator rightly criticised the initial quote, “and so the story begins” (or something) NO IT DOESN’T! It continues!!! How hard is that to do! It only begins with a new game!

OK. That quibble aside, the sound and music was very good, as was the dialogue.
Game wise the much vaunted co-op play was a joke. It’s not coop play. It’s just a chance to share a friend’s world and look about. Play is severely restricted and the camera is a pain! So co-op should have been mentioned as a tourism feature, not a gaming feature if you ask me. As that it would have been a success. As compared to co-op play in Crackdown for example? Well no. It just doesn’t compare.

I finished the game in the main, and was looking forward to continuing, but basically got darked out by Fallout 3. And that stopped my 360 gaming for the present time!
What has replaced it? Read my next blog for a blast from a long distant past (in more ways than one….)

In Praise of Able (with an F)

I thought I would take the time "Pre-Fable 2" to look at the reception of the original Fable and what made it, in my eyes, a big success.

For a game that I loved, I thought Fable received quite a harsh critical reception, partly because I think it dared to do a variety of things differently. And I hope that Fable 2 continues along this road…but more of that at a later date!
Let’s start with the feeling I got playing (and finishing..sometimes a rare thing) Fable. Well firstly, and this is important in a game, I enjoyed it. I felt I was a hero. I wasn’t particularly challenged; in fact I thought it was fairly easy. But I enjoyed it. And I’m sure Mr. Molyneux set out to achieve that, rather than laughingly sitting at his desk stroking a white cat as I tore my hair out in frustration, crying “Why is this game so hard!” That’s right; games don’t have to be hard. In fact, one of the things that occurred to me while playing Halo 3 was that a lot of the time I didn’t feel like an invincible super-soldier, but some poor grunt who got repeatedly gunned down after going over the top. OK, I selected the difficulty and wanted a challenge, but I basically lost the vision of being the protagonist that Bungie had created.

I think this is an inevitable part of “single protagonist” shooters, where you can die. They are nearly all one man armies in the Halo, Gears of War, etc mould. One of the good things about the COD 4 single player experience was the fact (SPOILER! LOOK AWAY!) that one of your protagonists dies in the course of his mission. It lends a little mortality back to the game, and the idea of war. I think some games in the future will have the nerve to address this, and create a different feeling game, perhaps in army /war styled shooters such as Gears or the Battlefield or COD series. Why not have the players character as the general, who gives feedback on story and progress and accomplishment in between missions, while you play as a series of grunts who have to carry out the missions. The amount of corpses the player accrues can act as a score as well as giving an emotional weight to your achievements in the game. If the unit runs out of men, then maybe that mission fails. All the while the player character “General Chief” can boast of his cunctation skills in preserving his boys, or coldly pronounce that the mission was accomplished regardless of casualties. Or break down weeping, “War is Hell!”

Which leads me back to Fable. I finished it easily, and I had a blast. So much so, that I made a new character and jumped right back in vowing to do things differently this time (in fact, evilly!) The game’s enjoyment came not from the progress alone, but through the environment and the atmosphere the game conjured. In fact I can sum up my love of Fable in two words: “Chicken Chaser!” The character of the game was embodied by brave use of audio, and it still resonates today as one of the few games whose audio signature stays with me and epitomises the game (alongside the fantastic chatter of the original Halo). In fact I remember being quite angry reading an Edge magazine discussion which dared to criticise the use of audio in Fable, seeming to prefer yet more bland “thou & thee” mid Atlantic RPG speak. I hope Fable 2 continues in the path it so ably beat before, and from the few clips I have seen, it seems to do so. Its humour shone throughout the game, and was a big part in making it a comfy gaming experience that will long stick with me as a uniquely identifiable game. Chicken Chasing was not just an amusing audio clip it was a fun experience in the game, one which had nothing to do with “storyline” and “progress”. Again, Fable acted as a gaming enabler; the ability to spend time in the world mucking about, boasting in front of crowds and scaring passers by took the pressure off the player to ‘accomplish’ and progress, and let them proceed as they saw fit. Progress might be buying another house, or getting a new haircut. Either way, it was an enjoyable gaming experience, and something other games could do well to learn from.

Perhaps more games, even those not starting with an F, should make the player Able.

Social Gaming. A new imperative for older gamers?

I have come to notice recently that my gaming habit has become a means of communication, rather than just a means of play. As I have gotten older, and my circle of friends has expanded (and I mean that in a geographic rather than quantative sense!) it’s been very hard to ‘hang out’ with my friends. A current swathe of babies among them all has only added to the time pressure being felt by many of them.

The Xbox 360s ‘Xbox Live’ is a great method for sharing time and chatting with your mates, as I realised when going through a bout of solo gaming recently. In some senses I realised it felt quite an empty experience without sharing it with my friends. Often we get on for a game of Forza or Chromehounds or Crackdown, all cooperative pleasures, and achieve very little in gaming terms but have a great time and a good laugh, which in entertainment terms means these games score very highly. Not only that but they offer great longevity, as we keep returning to them, whereas single player games, once complete are often merely discarded. Perhaps when creating a brand or a new IP, games design companies should keep that in mind, as cooperative experiences can keep fans loyal and keep the brand fresh in gamers minds. Also the very fact of coop gaming, especially in sandbox style games, allows for the players to create their own play experiences. I wonder how many people out there have whiled away the hours with their friends engaging on ‘silly’ projects within a game world, rather than achieving anything the game has specifically set out for you to ‘accomplish’. Crackdown offered the chance to try and build structures out of the worlds physics enabled furniture (such as skips, cars, lampposts, and handily enough highly explosive barrels) and once the structure is big enough and packed with enough high explosive to make any pro carbomber proud, detonated for a magnificent fireworks display. Making tanks by tipping skips over small cars while you coop friend rides on top to provide the fire power is also fairly entertaining, seeing how far you can go before your smart car powered tank/skip falls apart. Co-op gaming isn’t just fun, it can enable fun that isn’t present in single player gaming, even within the same game.

I wonder how many games creators are going to wake up to this seemingly forgotten fact in the next few years? Will single player modes become the ‘tacked on’ element of new games, or will they be designed as seems standard now, as single player games, with coop thrown in if possible? Versus play is core to FPS & RTS gaming, but versus mainly uses humans to replace AI effectively and cheaply, and isn’t a shared ‘friendly’ experience (have you tried playing a bunch of American teenagers in COD4 or Gears of War on Live?! Great well made games rapidly become a hideously un-enjoyable experience…hmm online player behaviour might be another blog chapter soon!). Is co-op the new future that is starting to dawn on an increasingly large number of companies? Titles such as Fable 2,and Army of 2 may hint at it, but they still seem to be in the minority

Games are great fun. But in truth this all seems a fairly obvious reflection of what we all learned as children. Play is great, but it’s a lot better if you are playing with your friends.

Interfarce

Games are interactive entertainment.

That's two fairly obvious words. They should connect directly and honestly with the player. And they should entertain them. Simple enough, eh?

So why is that some games either think that pressing a single button counts as interacting, (yes thats right Japanese RPGS, I'm looking at you!) or that other games force pointless such 'interactions' on the player, BEFORE they can even play.

A lot of games seem to have front ends that either are the result of zero forethought or even worse, a seemingly wilful disregard for the players fingers and time. One of my favourite games, Chromehounds on Xbox360, is a classic example of this syndrome. On booting up, the player is asked whether they want to play online or single player. All well and good, but the single player is a tutorial that once over is never use again. Once Xbox live is selected, then the player must select his harddrive as the chosen storage media. After the choice there is a confirm box, which defaults to "no". WHY!?! Why would anyone say no, when there is only one choice..ie your hardrive. Once you have overcome this tricky obstacle you dive into the game lobby. Whoops! Not quite, first you must plough through a series of pointless "news" messages, each requiring a press of your A button to skip.... Great, more Japanese style interation...

All of these hurdles are pointless delays before you can get into playing a game. Oblivion, one of the Xbox's first hits set the right trend. It remembered your chosen storage device, and also where you were in game. You booted up and pressed start twice and continued playing, just as it should be.

In todays time pressed enviroment, with old fogey gamers like me having to cope with friends and families hectic schedules, each minute of gaming is a treasured haven at the end of the day. Each second spent faffing in lobbies or trying to coordinate settings etc, is a waste of time. Pressing "A" repeatedly for no real reason, other than to progress what would have progressed without you pressing "A" is not real interation. Every interaction I make should have an effect. Yes or no is a dialog choice, but just moving on, is not. If its complex and important dialog and you want to give time to read it, put it on a scroll or give me a pause / replay facility, but dont make me press the button just for the sake of it.

This short rant is dedicated to Eric who took the time to read my only other entry, and has inspiried me to write some more soon! I hope I havent wasted your time.

Press "A" to continue....

War Isn’t Hell. Gaming in the 21st Century

‘Games are growing up’ is a phrase I’ve often heard in relation to both the industry and the actual content of games. However I look at the content though, I don’t see much evidence of a maturing media. Even Nintendo, seeking to advertise their new Wii with it’s revolutionary (and so supposedly audience widening) controller, show TV ads of a man hitting people with a sword and then shooting them with guns.

Progress? I think not.

Technology is no longer an excuse as next gen consoles display ever increasing power and the PC grows ever more capable and ubiquitous. They have ample storage for immersive audio, branching stories, retaining information to allow interaction with environments, and improved AI. This combined with often impressive facial animations, and lip synching technology means there is a very clear cut (and no longer ‘cutting edge’) means of providing the player with an immersive and emotional gaming experience.

Somehow all these opportunities seem to have been lost, overrun by a desire to show ‘better’ blood being sprayed over the screen as high definition weapons spray death of all kinds (yes even the physics powered kind!) Often the only form of interactive environment is cover that can be destroyed, tyre tracks that can be admired or crates that can be smashed (wow! More ammo!)

Now as an owner of Gears of War on the 360, I can appreciate high def blood being sprayed by chainsaws over my screen. It’s a fun game, which looks and plays very well. But it seems that not only am I being offered little else as a gamer (especially on the 360, with its countless FPS shooters), but that I am being offered a crippled version of what could be presented in a ‘shooter’.

Games such as Halo, Half life and indeed Gears of War all set out to provide a single player story as well as offering up entertainment in online multiplayer mode. The mass of WWII shooters too, such as Call of Duty or Brothers in Arms, often seek to immerse the player in a “Saving Private Ryan”-esque war epic, before seeing them blast away online.

Ryan began with a harrowing sequence from ‘Bloody Omaha’ on the beaches of Normandy. It illustrated to the viewer very quickly, that when General Sherman said “War is Hell.” he meant it honestly, not because he couldn’t find another ammo crate in time. Too use another literary phrase, from Bao Ninh, “The Sorrow of War,” is very rarely shared with the player. Personally I looked forward to the original instalment of Brothers in Arms, with its promise of squad based action and an emotional investment in your fellow soldiers. The ‘Burden of Command’ was emphasised in its early cut scenes, and I took real care with my men’s lives.

Until my first squad loss…

When Cpl Corrion went down in a hail of MG fire I mourned the loss of one of my men and then rapidly began to wonder how I could progress without him. My problems were short lived when I discovered that as soon as I reached the next level my lost GI was miraculously ‘reborn’. From then on any immersion and command burden was lost and the game became yet another re-spawn fest. The fates of Corrion et al had proven to be irrelevant as they were effectively immortal.

It would have been easy to generate random new squad members every time one was lost. Survivors could have gained experience and been seen by the player as ‘more valuable’ than the rookies. Indeed game play could have been shaped as players sought to preserve their veterans, rather risking their new boys. The end of the campaign could have presented the player with a ‘butcher’s bill’ noting how many men their command skills sent to their grave. A gruesome, yet effective ‘lo score’ way of preserving the ‘War is Hell’ message within a game maybe? It certainly would have reinforced the message that Brothers in Arms claimed to be sending, whilst also allowing friends or even solo gamers a comparative mechanic to track their progress.

Keeping tally in this way and keeping track of survivors would add plenty of emotional attachment to a game, and is a valid way of sidetracking the central problem that the protagonist, that is to say the player, is effectively immortal.

This can be seen to be effective too in tactical / strategy games, which lack the central ‘player’ figure. Often certain units acquire value for a player due to ‘nostalgia’ reasons, rather than actual tactical value. A preserved hero is perhaps someone (or something) to be proud of. The Total War series is a good example of this.

Indeed in the long running Close Combat campaign between my brother and I, (currently in Stalingrad) one of his battle groups is retreating purely to preserve a legendary STG assault gun crew, rather than disband them. The addition of such characters and their respective fates adds much to each game, as a game play mechanic and an emotional hook. Throwing nameless troops to their deaths would be a hollowed experience and consequently not as much fun.

War games ought to be an enjoyable experience, and indeed often are. By why should games, a new media that often compares itself to either film or art, always seek to limit its own impact?

The search for a ‘game that will make you cry’ will never be successful if games constantly and seemingly deliberately attempt to avoid any risk of emotional attachment or depth.

War films or literature are not always gung ho blasters. There is loss, defeat, sacrifice, mourning, the ‘pointlessness’ of war, alongside the heroism, the bravery, the stark choices that must be made, and the camaraderie that can develop. How many of these themes (to name but a few) have really ever been revealed by a shooter?

Until game designers realise that war is more than just bullets, games have a long way to go.