A few months ago, David Sirlin wrote an interesting rant/article on Gamasutra criticizing various aspects of World of Warcraft for “teaching” the players the wrong things. He says some interesting things about the fairly obvious points that WoW encourages time over skill and group-play over solo-play. However… the article fails because of one false assumption, and I wanted to talk about it because it is a mistake made commonly by those who discuss game design. Namely, game designers do not get to decide how players have fun.

This point is so important, that I will imitate Sirlin by repeating it again. Game designers do not get to decide how players have fun!

Players invest their time in a game if they are enjoying themselves. We, as game designers, provide fun in a free market. In other words, we create the supply; they provide the demand. World of Warcraft is successful because it meets the “demand for fun” of some five million players. This demand comes from players who, using his arguments, prefer a game which rewards time over skill and encourages grouping over solo play. Certainly WoW is not without imperfections, but one must assume that the game’s subscribers are playing the game because they like the core features which Sirlin has decried.

Of course, these features may in fact teach the players the wrong lessons about life. They may be teaching that it is wrong to be highly skilled and self-reliant. It doesn’t matter. In a free market, we cannot control what games people choose to play. Sirlin may be able “to design an MMO that teaches the right things”… but will it matter if no one wants to play it?

I don’t really feel good about making this point because, after all, I’m sure we would all like to think that the games we make do teach the players important lessons and perhaps make the world a slightly better place. Well, a good game always does the latter but not necessarily the former. Good games entertain us, help us enjoy ourselves and forget our troubles – that entertainment is the value for which players are looking. Creating it is not an ignoble cause… but a good game will not be made better just by making sure it teaches the right lessons.

By the way, I would like to add that Sirlin has written many, many excellent articles that do a great job of spelling out the challenges of game design. For example, his article on rock/paper/scissors mechanics is the best I have seen on the subject. (In fact, I shamelessly stole from it for my 2004 GDC presentation…)

Galactic Civilizations II has just been released. Outside of Civ, the epic turn-based strategy game market has been pretty small this decade, so it’s good to see another successful franchise in the space. Brad Wardell, the lead designer, gave me a chance to play-test the game late last year, and I had fun with it. It’s certainly a step up from its predecessor, which was a good game that was probably put together on a wing and a prayer.

This version should hold a lot of appeal for fans of the Civ series. Unlike MOO, it sticks pretty closely to the turn-based, tile-based game mechanic of Sid’s original game. However, it definitely falls on the “more complex” side of the spectrum (it has more “stuff” in it than Civ4, for example…), but it starts small, which is key.

At any rate, turn-based fans should give it a look!

This is awesome. It’s nice to know that they’ve finally just cut to the chase. I’ve been to GDC four times, and each time the highlight of the show has been Will Wright’s talk. Furthermore, his talks seem to get better and better every year – and, of course, more and more crowded. I was particularly fond of his wild tangent in 2004 about the history of the Russian space program (short version: NASA’s money and engineering hasn’t made the US’s space program any safer or more effective than the Russians who favor low-tech solutions).

Of course, his talk last year – when he revealed Spore – has become the stuff of legend, so it’s a sure thing that every person going to GDC 2006 will be trying to squeeze into whatever auditorium can’t hold us at noon on Thursday. Woe to any other speaker scheduled for the same time.

Fortunately for me (note the effortless segue here!), my talk is scheduled for a different time slot. I will be giving a presentation with Dorian Newcomb (our Lead Animator) on the prototyping phase of Civ4. We’ll be showing off some very, very early versions of the game, revealing what was playable and what wasn’t in the first year of the project. By the way, my 2004 GDC talk was given right in the middle of that prototyping phase, which lasted roughly from Fall 2003 to Summer 2004.

I love this crazy Japanese cube game

I’ve always had a soft spot for minimalist music, both classical and not. I’ve never seen a game I would describe as minimalist, but there you go. In 100 years, when we’re all playing Mario 4096, that little flash app will STILL be fun. There must be something hard-wired into the human psyche (or, at least, my psyche) about evading predators, like little red cubes.

The really odd thing about the game is that it is actually deterministic. I didn’t notice it at first, but the pattern of the chase is always the same, which actually leads to (a little) high-level strategy. I keep getting killed in the upper-left corner at 20 seconds, so I do my best to remember to keep low after the 15 second mark.

Still, it’s begging for a random version. Is one available? Anyone know Japanese?

Like everybody else, it seems, I’ve been playing some Battlefield 2 recently (which, I must say, is a very strange name for a third game in a series – I guess Battlefield:Iraq wouldn’t fly?) At any rate, it’s an excellent game, a big step up from BF:Vietnam.

What I find most interesting about the game is that it is so obviously not a brand new product. The graphics and subject matter are both compelling enough that it’s going to hook plenty of new players, but most of the innovations (the squad system, saved ranks/medals, tank/anti-tank/special forces balance, the simple but effective fatigue model, etc.) are clearly built upon years and years and years spent developing exactly the same game over and over again. Simply put, Battlefield 2 is so much fun because the people at DICE really knows what they are doing.

Which, as a game designer, begs the question: could I possibly make a game that could compete with Battlefield 2? Could they make a game to compete with Civ 4? I am constantly being reminded by the fans about all the details they expect from a Civilization game. Hitting F1-12 should open AND close the Advisor screens. There must be SEPARATE options for quick attacks and/or defends. Sometimes they’d like to watch all rival moves and sometimes only enemy moves. Yes, double-click may select all units in a tile, but what if one just want to select all the workers? I don’t envy the next guy who has to remember all of this.

It’s not the ’80s anymore, when EA seemed to reinvent gaming each Christmas. (Dude.) Nowadays, a game like San Andreas is described as innovative, even though it’s the FIFTH game in a series. However, it’s possible that, in 2005, “innovation” is really beside the point.

The old, hoary games-as-movies analogy always breaks down because – in gaming – the sequel is often better than the original. I’d like to present a better analogy: games-as-cars. In the auto industry, the “genres” are pretty well established (sedans, trucks, cycles, minivans, etc). Much of the significant progress is technical (gas mileage, horse-power), and design improvements are usually of the tweak variety – a volume knob for your steering wheel! Every once in a while, a new hybrid emerges (SUVs), but it’s usually some variation on earlier ideas.

OK, so every analogy has holes, but I think this one is most relevant in terms of developers. Car companies are usually known for one type of car – I’m not going to be buying a Porsche truck anytime soon. Each car class has thousands and thousands of details that prevent creating new models out of whole cloth. Computer games have reached that point of complexity – it is becoming prohibitively difficult to just dip a toe into a new genre or style. Is it that hard to guess what’s coming next from Bioware? from Rainbow? from Rockstar? from Insomniac? from Ensemble?

er, nevermind. Well, let’s check back in three years and see how THAT turns out.

So, I made it out to my first E3. It wasn’t quite as loud and crazy as I expected it to be – although that may be my perspective from having a nice, cool, quiet room to give our Civ4 demos. With the biggest plasma TV screen I’ve ever seen. It must have about 70″ – I heard it cost upwards of $25K.

Giving the demos was a more fun than I expected, especially once I got my rhythm down. It actually reminds of what I learned about writing in college; writing is only difficult when you don’t actually have something interesting to write about. Demoing Civ4 was easy because there is so much to show. Even with a 30 minute demo, we were only revealing a small fraction of the game, let alone all of the stuff you can’t really demo (multi-player, mod support, micromanagement fixes, improved AI, etc).

As for the show, I’d like to say I saw something that blew me away, but I didn’t. (besides the real-life Katamari ball!!!) Graphics are starting to hit diminishing returns. Most of the first-person games look the same, and the bloom shader has definitely lost its initial, er, shine. Interesting game-play? E3 is not the best forum for that. (I loved Prince of Persia but was put off by the “hardness” of the sequel. The only thing I discovered about the newest version was that it would be “bigger and badder than ever.” Gee, thanks…)

Age of Empires III did look incredible, especially the water, which may be the most beautiful thing I have ever seen in a game. (Naturally, they have a programmer working full-time on it.) The shading and choice of color is remarkable. I actually expect the art world to take notice. The game could be fun too – impossible to tell from a quick demo, of course. The trick will be whether they’ve learned from the “more is less” problems of Age of Myth (that game would have been twice as good if all human units had been removed). Rise of Legends also looked remarkably good for a game a full year out – I assume Microsoft won’t let them release until x months after AoE3. Somehow, the graphics retained the “fun-ness” of 2D while still being 3D, which is a neat trick. Steampunk is going to be a hard sell, though.