So the big milestone for the Data Driven Dialogue project is in and frankly it needs some time to sit on the shelf while I gather my thoughts for a fresh assault. So I set about learning Unity, something I’ve been interested in for a long time as a prototyping tool.

The first thing I will say, and I found this with XNA as well, is 90% of the tutorials, resources ect… are worthless to anyone with any base level knowledge. Throw them out, you just need a quick run though the UI, and some quirks pages. All of 10 mins then just use your gathered experience and the reference docs from there on out.

Now when learning new tech two of my favourite test projects are Pong and Tetris. I immediately dismissed these however as Unity made both very easy with its built in functionality, and I knew I wouldn’t learn much because I wouldn’t need to solve too many problems. I immediately settled on Chess as a well defined game because as anyone who has worked with high level world based tools knows.

• Using any coordiante system for game logic not directly tied to render space is a pain
• Object and Game logic conflict requiring you to split things up
• State based animations and effects can be a pain
• A simple chess AI is a nice little work-out

So yeah I’m tinkering away with that at the moment. Slowly building more layers of complexity on top of it till I’m satisfied I know Unity well enough for a real project I have in mind.

Oh and if you asked why I’m writing a boring Pong / Tetris / Chess game to learn Unity when I could be making Cool Idea #63? The answer is simple always learn new tech with a pre-defined and tested design. Otherwise you will compromise the design to avoid problems rather than be forced to overcome them. The goal is to learn the tech not to make a super awesome game.

Tavern Talk

Okay it doesn’t look like much but there is a LOT of back-end going into this. With some good work but tonight I should be able to parse the scene script.

Still haven’t solved my combination problem for the Gaussian Probability Sets. I have the question up on Math StackExchange.

So onwards to the generators!

c:\Dev\DDD-Snake>testbed.py
~~ Defined Key {SEVERAL:[ 4 : 8 ]}
~~ Done Cleaning and Building Define List

~~ Done Parsing Location data

Status [Gender]          Enum : Male(50%) Female(50%)
Status [Job]     Enum : Barman(25%) Miner(25%) Gaurd(25%) Functionary(25%)
Status [Height]          NumRange [1.2:2.4]
Status [Nation]          Enum : Red(83%) Green(8%) Blue(8%)
Status [HairColour]      Enum : Red(16%) Ginger(16%) Strawberry Blond(16%) Blond(16%) Brunette(16%) Black(16%)
Status [HairStyle]       Enum : Bald(12%) Shaved(12%) Short(12%) Curly(12%) Shoulder Length(12%) Long(12%) Braided(12%)
Braids(12%)
Modifier Gender[X ]
         HairStyle : 20% 20% 20% 20% 20% 0% 0% 0%
         Height : 1.9 ~ 0.4
Modifier Gender[ X]
         Job : 0% 0% 0% 100%
         HairStyle : 0% 0% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%
         Height : 1.7 ~ 0.3
Modifier Job[XXX ]
         Gender : 100% 0%
Modifier Job[ X  ]
         HairStyle : 33% 33% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Modifier Job[  X ]
         Nation : 100% 0% 0%
Modifier Nation[X  ]
         HairColour : 80% 12% 3% 3% 2% 0%
         Height : 1.7 ~ 0.2
Mutator "Tall"
         Height : 2.1 ~ 0.2
~~ Done Parsing  People data

Status [GlassFill]       NumRange [0.0:1.0]
Status [DrinkType]       Enum : Beer(25%) Wine(25%) Water(25%) Milk(25%)
Status [DieFace]         Enum : 1(16%) 2(16%) 3(16%) 4(16%) 5(16%) 6(16%)
TODO :: Parse Prop Template --> ['Dice', ['DieFace']]
TODO :: Parse Prop Template --> ['Drink', ['DrinkType, GlassFill']]
~~ Done Parsing Prop data

______ TODO :: PARSE VERBS _______
VERB Cleaning REQUIRES PROP
VERB Dicing REQUIRES Dice
VERB Drinking REQUIRES Drink
~~ Done Parsing Verb data

Done parsing dictionary.txt
 -----------------------------

Okay so talk about timing. Just days after my last post it’s announced classic team based tactical game Jagged Alliance is getting an online treatment.

So now often people think strange things but often an idea’s time has just come, the influences are there and given enough brains some will arrive at similar conclusions. This happened for Calculus for instance. Now in the international mono-culture it is even more common. I could point to a beta which was made public today and pull out a pitch document I wrote two years ago and you would be convinced it’s the same game (not telling what the game is).

Back to the new game though. The following information is from the launch site.

Tactical Turn based Action in 3D isometric graphics with parameterized maps for fresh challenges

Procedural Generated content and browser based, these both get two massive thumbs up. Also this implies a low technical barrier to entry.

Management of mercenary company with extended RPG system

Levelling up characters and long term progression are key sticky factors keeping players engaged. It raises the barrier to entry a tiny bit if done right, and by a mile if done poorly.

Synchronous and asynchronous online PvE, co-op and PvP

Every word there is gold. Synchronous is nothing new but it is the most engaging way for players to interact and is always brilliant that you support it. Asynchronous is crucial in the busy online world and social environment, especially for casual players. As we discussed it was a key factor of new social Multiplayer elements, also means you need a much smaller player base before getting critical mass.

Co-op is key for the non-competitive players and if pitched right with the correct buffs ect… will be a key recruitment point. If you make co-op a powerful experience with rewards you can turn your player base into your most vocal recruiters. Finally PvP and PvE has to be in there for the more traditional player, and PvP tends to increase the depth of play significantly.

Build up your own HQ

This has social written all over it espcially if its easy to share and show-off. Build your own formula is a key element of almost every successful social system. For Xbox it’s achievements and for Farmville it is the farm.

Players can choose to accept campaigns, which are essentially a string of missions on a specific map that need to be resolved within a given time frame.

Player’s can choose is a nice phrase, that power to the player that social systems push, but the kicker is the given time frame. The choice gives the sense of control but the time limit is the pull-back and the sticky factor. I assume the time frames will be very lenient but just short enough to encourage you to come back before your crops wither, so to speak.

Players can support other’s campaigns by renting mercenaries for a certain amount of time and can also bolster their roster by using their ally’s mercs.

Here comes another viral vector, and reason to recruit friends. It’s the golden goose trick of turning a person’s friends into a game resource. Making them ensure they have more, and therefore you have more players. It also provides a very passive social interaction which will keep reminding players to get back in because their friends are still playing.

The game can be played as a normal browser game, managing mercenaries and sending them on missions or players can dive into the action on the tactical map, improving their chances and rewards.

So the depth of engagement is chosen by the player, and how much time they have. Again it’s smart because many people will be recruited by their friends but not be deeply invested enough, at first, to engage in tactical game-play. Think of it as getting someone into whiskey by giving them fruiting cocktails to start with.

This is also encouraging because it suggests the game will have the desired depth for us more traditional tactical players.

The game has three core layers of gameplay:

• The tactical map, where players control their mercs directly in turn based/real time combat.
• The management level, where players run their company, rent out mercs and choose missions or campaigns as well as build up their HQ facilities.
• The social layer, where players may support or fight others on campaigns or missions.

Again the different depths of engagement.

Overall they have landed a licence to one of the most seminal tactical titles in gaming history, and unlike the raping of the X-Com franchise.

Upgrading a franchise and making it relevant for a modern audience isn’t hard. When done well it’s like the new Star Trek movie, keeping the key things and rebooting it. All you do is brush it off look at the key mechanics and update it a bit. They have updated it without losing the core game-play which was key to the original title, and updated it to fit into the social gaming space.

Here’s hoping it turns out well.

Turn based deep strategy games such as my favourite X-Com have really deep systematic strategy. This follows a long history of games like Go, Chess and many other older games. Turn based systems remove time pressure and allow for deep exploration. Not to mention the removal of immediate interrupt and correction bring a deep tension and a wonderful set of game mechanics to the fore.

Casual games tend to be played when it’s convenient, the synchronous organised Multiplayer experiences of hardcore gaming have not really taken off in the casual space. While player interaction is key to Social Gaming it tends not to be an active session but instead a series of delayed interactions.

It’s easy to think casual gamers have no desire for strategy but possibly we are underestimating them.

So can we merge some of the following

• Turn based strategy
• Synchronous Actions
• Social Networks
• Play by Mail
• Meta Game

I think the answer is YES and I’m dying to try bring a team based tactical turn based game to the space, if I get any free time soon.

Great Examples

• Neptune’s Pride
• X-Com
• Frozen Synapse
• Chess & Go
• Facebook Scrabble

We are already starting to do it, isn’t that great. All those games have the building blocks we need and have proven them to work.

Also did anyone else get pulled into those mid 90s web page based limited action per (day / week) massive strategy games???

I’m loving Starcraft 2 at the moment, and it got me thinking about my love of imperfect information in games design. I strongly recommend A Game of Thrones (board game) and Frozen Synapse, which also introduce blind simultaneous action which make it even more interesting.

So in a game with Perfect Information such as Chess, you know all information about the current state. Rock-Paper-Scissors is the simplest example of blind action. It’s such a stupidly simple game but with practice and knowledge of your opponent you can increase you win chances. Balancing intelligence gathering and predicting other players actions are such deep interactions.

This is also what makes Poker so exciting is the reading of the little tells, something which is only possible face to face. So the meta game becomes part of the game which is so interesting. I notice this more and more watching high level Starcraft games. What I like even more is the option to use in game resources to gather information.

That balance between a blind massive push and a much small precision strike is so invaluable. It’s what makes war such an interesting study.

The thing which makes games dull is when they become solvable. Introducing randomness makes the task more difficult by introducing probabilities but chance can counter skill leading to a less interesting game, in some cases. Imperfect information is a much harder solution space to map, and once the meta game interacts we go onto a whole new plane of interactions.

Currently I’m working on my Data Driven Dialogue system which at present is a perfect information system. Though there are planned and roughly sketched modules for dissemination, deception and mutation which I’m squeeing with joy about whenever I run them through my head. It’s doubtful that those modules will be done by the end of the month but I plan to make them core components of a game I’m planning.

So next time your playing an imperfect information game, especially with people you know well. Stop and think how much information gathering your doing in-game and how much is on a meta level based on your opponent’s psyche.

We were working late a few weeks back when the news was delivered and well the final final final letter came through today. It’s all quite a process, which started with a large round of redundancies as we tried to pull through but couldn’t. The company is still running but sans Games. Many good people are now out of work, some have already found new work but it’s done.

There were a lot of good people doing their best. The question WHY has been thrown around and to be frank there is no way of answering it without sounding like an ass. Throwing mud gives leaves you dirty.

I will say that there were clear failings in certain keys areas, and I would love to do a post-mortem on it. Sadly our industry is small, secretive and in some cases petty. So it’s very hard to dissect such a thing academically without shooting your career in the foot.

I will say that a key bad point has been removed, and is hopefully bleeding in some dark alley, and that the remaining managers are well aware of past mistakes. I wish them all the best and hope they pull through. I encourage anyone to take a second look at the company because in many ways it is now a healthier place.

Hunting for a job

Well the hunt has been on for some time now and I will say there are two opportunities I’m waiting on like a kid before Christmas. I honestly don’t know which one I want more but there are both jackpot prizes.

I did have a lot of trouble with the whole Games Designer & Programmer thing. While most industry vets see the strength of that, and even the inevitable crossover well it confuses interviewers. You are a funny shaped peg they have a hard time hiring. So in the end I made two CVs and chose the most appropriate.

Podcast Problems

Noticed some trouble with the iTunes feed which is now fixed, sorry for the delays. Obviously I can no longer use the awesome sound setup at work so I’m looking into making other plans. Please let me know what you most want to see out of the cast.

All the best,
Claire

So the data driven dialogue project is moving along and well a simple problem arises.

The more mechanic driven and gamey your game is, Ludology focused, the easier it is to scrape and implement a data driven dialogue system. The more narrative or plot driven the game is, the more special cases you have and thus the data driven solution becomes much more difficult.

The problem is that the narrative focused game are the ones that will most benefit from it. But of course uprooting an established standard is a tricky task to undertake.

The mistake I made is at the start of the project I chose an atypical role-playing module as a reference point. This being my ultimate goal, but its sooo difficult to use as a reference. Where as recently I started using Quake as an example as it just clicks so well.

So yes I could have a post game chat and character development added to Quake but not sure how well that would appeal. I guess prove it first then move onto more difficult examples.

Working on my Cave Generator.

Task List

• Trace Wall Outlines
• Smooth Lines
• Generate 3D Geometry

Now I know the indie and art games scene has been promoting this concept of subversive play for a long time but I ask you how many developers question the need for a tutorial?

Too many paths

Back in the NES days we had a d-pad and two buttons. The exploration space was tiny and welcoming, the modern game-pad or keyboard offer too many options of exploration. Think of giving a child a set of water-colours, oil paints and pencils along with a blank piece of paper. Often the huge scope scares them and if it doesn’t bore them the resulting mess is epic. Think then of a child with a small set of crayons and a colouring book with rough outlines. They are much more keen, the results are better and often they will totally subvert the original drawing.

The rise of the touch interface, a very natural playful interaction and hopefully Kinetic give us a much better understandable scope of play.

Meta Rules vs Mechanical Rules

We made Petanque for the Wii in which we implemented the strict meta-rules of Petanque. Now these rules are very conceptual, like don’t step out of the circle or don’t throw the ball out of the white lines. There is no real feedback for breaking these rules so there is no way of learning them through play. If you give kids a football they will learn to kick, run and pass through play. It is only months or years later that they are introduced to the stuffy artificial rules we make for the game.

Now imagine instead of white lines we had a massive cliff going into lava, and instead of a circle we had a massive ball and chain. Mechanical rules and feedback, which we could implement in the game space. Now the rules of the game can be learnt much more easily through play.

But I’m confused

I suggest that tutorials are often compensating for overly complex rule sets which are not consistent or evident. For instance in Glo many people struggled with the Frogs. By the end of the project the art and behaviours of the frog were much more clear, and the levels better at exposing them. Though when we first hit the problem the obvious solution was to make sure the tutorial was better and clearer.

I now think we could have removed all the tutorials in Glo, provided a help section if people got truly stuck and removed the post level feedback screen. It would have resulted in a much stronger experience. One in which you can play and explore the game freely.

But the publisher

As Braid pointed out they had a nightmare getting their menu system accepted because it subverted accepted established systems. Mircosoft’s stance is understandable, even praise worthy in its goal to keep a consistent experience but ultimately Braid was better for its exploratory nature.

Publisher’s will often request non-expertianal things like stats screen, known mechanics, and tutorials. This is not because they are evil but because they wish to reduce risk. It is a games designer job not only to convince the development team of these new ideas and methods of subversive play but also the publisher.

What do you think?

This has all exploded in my brain today, coalescing from many different sources and I still haven’t finished processing it. I would love to hear your thoughts on it.

I pull in Nick Lewis and Neil Richardson again to discuss some technical art talks from Develop. The main talks we focus on are Jolyon Webb from Blitz games RnD talk, and a talk about the EyePet from James Answer.

We talk about RnD teams, and process. How to get artists into RnD and the advantages of doing more in Maya. Look at the advantages of Facial Bone Rigging vs Morph Target. The right right way or the hacked way. Re-targeting animations for systems like Move & Kinetic.

Next time we will dive into the conversation we touched on at the end, of game drama.

Hope you enjoyed this week. Please provide feedback

• Comment on the Blog Post
• Poke me on Twitter (@EvilKimau)
• Suggest new topics on our Topics Suggestion Page.