We chat about videogames and videogame accessories.

Hey guys, remember Deus Ex: Human Revolution?

There's gonna be a Director's Cut for the Wii U.

And now the boss battles don't suck any more.

Ghost trick was a ghost the entire time

Aside from the fact that probably everyone already knows about it, how has Torment: Tides of Numenera gone as-yet unmentioned? It's hideously ambitious but exactly the sort of thing I'd expect (several of) you dudes to enjoy (if it ever actually comes out). It has famous writer people I've never heard of and like the entire lead dev team from the first Torment, or something, look, they explain it better'n I could.

I'll call the idea as it's being sold Deus Ex On Crack: The Isometric RPG and leave it at that.

Oh wow, I knew about a new Torment game but not that it was using the Numenera setting. I'm a little dubious about Monte Cook since he was behind a lot of 3.5 edition silliness, but despite my scrunched nose about him, I can't hide my glee to see a non-DnD planescape installment of Torment.

So I'll watch carefully with my enthusiasm pridefully hidden.

Yes I love Ghost Trick and I love how everyone loves Ghost Trick because it totally deserves everyones love.
I half want a sequel to it because it was super mega ace and half don't because If they fucked it up it would break my heart.

Ghost trick was a ghost the entire time

Aside from the fact that probably everyone already knows about it, how has Torment: Tides of Numenera gone as-yet unmentioned? It's hideously ambitious but exactly the sort of thing I'd expect (several of) you dudes to enjoy (if it ever actually comes out). It has famous writer people I've never heard of and like the entire lead dev team from the first Torment, or something, look, they explain it better'n I could.

I'll call the idea as it's being sold Deus Ex On Crack: The Isometric RPG and leave it at that.

I'm probably the only person who would've preferred to see them create something wholly unique rather than make any sort of sequel for PS:T.

'cause I like to see new things, rather than people trying to relive the glory of thirteen years ago.

I dont know that game but I agree with the sentiment.

I think the idea is that it's just a spiritual successor to the Planescape game, and would in many ways be entirely new? At least, that's the impression I got.

Oh wow, I knew about a new Torment game but not that it was using the Numenera setting. I'm a little dubious about Monte Cook since he was behind a lot of 3.5 edition silliness, but despite my scrunched nose about him, I can't hide my glee to see a non-DnD planescape installment of Torment.

So I'll watch carefully with my enthusiasm pridefully hidden.

I went and backed Numenera, because it looked like he was trying some story-focused move-away-from-D&D innovative stuff with it, and I'm curious to see how that turns out. Particularly through the filter of all the Forge indie RPG design theory stuff I've been steeping myself in lately. On the one hand, can an industry giant like Monte Cook shake off the tired old assumptions of mainstream RPG design and create something that lives up to the elegance and insight of some of those indie games I've been reading? Or will he fall into the same old traps? On the other hand, it's good to read the RPG design ideas and philosophies of someone who ISN'T Vincent Baker every once in a while, y'know? Monte Cook's an old hand at this, and I'm sure there's more to him than D&D 3.5. Must be something to learn from him.
That and the setting concept is awesome. Even if the system sucks, I can always harvest the setting for an Apocalypse World hack or something.
Anyway, I liked some of his ideas when I read his design blog, and was not so sure about others. But it actually seemed a far cry from D&D 3.5 in many ways.

This is pretty much not on topic. So, more relevantly, the Torment game: I have high hopes for it, though I only know Planescape by reputation. If nothing else, the setting is quite excellent from what I've seen.
I'd agree that reliving the glory of thirteen years ago is dumb, but I've backed too many adventure games by old Sierra folks to say that and not be a hypocrite, so I guess I don't agree. But I still know what you mean.

DUCK TALES HD

THIS IS NOT A DRILL

WHO'S THE BASTARD THAT PUT THE LYRICS IN THE ANNOUNCEMENT VIDEO

So wait, is it just a remake and not a sequel? That's a little dumb.

DEATH TO ALL REMAKES. Seriously, why would you want to play the same thing again but slightly better? Why not make a new, similar but improved game?

The answer: Quick cash moneys.

When they first announced it I was hoping they were gonna be doing all new levels and stuff, if at the very least because I know the discrepancies between the original and the remake are gonna bother me unreasonably and a clean break would fix that. Plus the usual "I can already replay the original and it'll probably have better moon music because no remix has ever been better than the original there."

Also when I first saw a screenshot it looked like a Paper Mario thing and that got me really excited. Paper Duck Comics!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that it looked like paper mario

It does! It's got a kinda cute art style and Jake Kaufman is in charge of the music. Makes me wish they were doing something better with it.

in my experience, wayforward is basically "this is cool but I wish you had done XYZ with it", The Company

mainly "this is cool but it feels hella short and underdeveloped"

I just bought half my wishlist on Steam. Stupid sale! My unplayed games list was bad enough already!
I am now the proud owner of Gish. I think I originally played the demo of that about ten years ago. I've been meaning to buy it ever since.
I've also just played (and beaten) Thirty Flights of Loving. It goes firmly in the "Less of a game, more of an experience" category.

Bigro, I have to admit, I don't see the appeal. Sure, it looks pretty, but gameplay looks like if you took all the interesting bits out of Dwarf Fortress, Age of Empires and SimCity and stuck what was left in an old-timey frontier setting. I can't say it grabs me.
What I do dig is, apparently sustainability is a game theme? And the website says he coded it all by himself! Engine from scratch in C++! That's tough, speaking from personal experience, and mine doesn't hold a candle to his. And he did all the graphics and audio and everything!

Well, TotalBiscuit has PAX footage of Transistor gameplay up.
Strategy elements? Oh my hnnnng

aaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Remember when every single 3D game had a camera that would screw you over?

Show Content

Spoiler

Well, I do.

If I’m not mistaken, most games nowadays employ a number of tricks that make camera easier than back in the day.

One of them is definitely right analog stick = camera. (The textbook we are using in Intro to Game Design still says to use L and R buttons, just one more reason our class has devolved into “point and laugh at the author”).

Another one is that now most games will know what you meant between controls relative to the camera, or controls relative to where the camera was when you started moving (which would definitely fix the classic example above, but introduces its own guessing-game problems). Probably each individual developer has their own secret sauce for this.

For example, Assassin’s Creed sandbox parts are very intuitive to navigate, though once every few hours you just can’t get the camera to do what you want for whatever reason, or just turn some direction you weren’t expecting. Frustrating as it is, that’s infrequent enough to call it pretty good.

As for the linear dungeon parts... wow, I have died in so many spots where the camera just moves on you. Like right here amggggrh. It might not look so bad from the video, but that whole sequence is full of unexpected camera changes that make you so unsure whether your controls have been turned several degrees or not, most of which could have been remedied by better cinematography. Sadly, every single one of those forced camera changes seem intended to help you see the right way to go.

Sonic Adventure is a game full of camera angle switchups, a cause of many reviewer complaints. Which is probably why Mr. Know-It-All is parked right outside of Emerald Coast saying, “Oh, and don't worry if the view suddenly changes. It does that sometimes. Just keep moving in the direction you want. It may take a little time to get used to it, so keep trying.” If they had clarified what “keep moving” and “keep trying” exactly meant, it probably would have cleared things up for me back in the day; to “keep” pressing an input could mean hold it or it could mean mash it. I couldn’t figure it out last time I started the game up (I was more interested in checking the translation), but the same text could easily describe AC where the solution is usually to bring the stick to neutral for a split second so that the directions get set to the current view.

Oh my gosh, Billy Hatcher has really nice visuals! I don't think I've ever actually watched the game in action before.

Apparently they made a PC and Mac port but only released it in Europe? That's uncommon. I wonder what the story is there.

---

e: ok, i looked around and apparently it's not that good of a port anyway

On Game Design Education and Associated Bullshit

Show Content

Spoiler

The textbook we are using in Intro to Game Design still says to use L and R buttons, just one more reason our class has devolved into "point and laugh at the author."

Fffffff okay look

See, the problem here

I have opinions about shitty Game Design educational practices from having had to sit through two years before figuring out, holy shit, these people are going about this entirely the wrong way, so

The problem here isn't so much that the author is giving you terrible advice on how to set up the camera, it's

Why is the author giving you advice on how to set up the camera at all?

Yes, that is a technical issue that people putting together a game are going to have to figure out and deal with. But it has nothing at all to do with game design.

Critically, there's this obvious and faulty assumption that you, the game designer, learning from this book about game design, in a course that is supposed to introduce game design... are specifically going to be developing games for consoles. Their supposition (on top of preventing the player from being able to look up or down at will) is that you're gonna be programming for something that needs a controller, which is just... completely blind to any side-on, top-down, PC, or non-digital game.

My own textbook falls prey to this as well when it starts going on about how you're gonna need to know how to do 3D modeling- in the chapter about character design. Again, a technical issue that may not even matter if you opt to forgo 3D imagery. On top of that, 3D modeling is something that'd affect more than just character design; on top of that, character design ought to be more about how to convey a character than through what medium they are conveyed.

There's even mention, funnily enough, of how you should be able to prototype your game on paper, so you can test if your mechanics work before the code is implemented. But the thing just assumes- and, I mean, yeah, it's the bigger, better-known industry, but- there's just this unspoken assumption that Game Design means Game Design For Consoles Or Computers. There's a sense to it, but it's not very well-thought-out.

Part of the issue, I'm sure, is that education itself isn't set to adapt to new developments, and the whole reason the games industry is big right now is because of all the new developments going on. There probably won't be a book about Kickstarter for another decade or so, let alone one that's education-focused.

But, even beyond that, beyond academia's sluggish reaction speed, there's this... subtle supposition, I think in part because most-if-not-all game design teachers are industry vets, that... like, they're teaching us how to construct games, not design them. They're calling it Architecture and teaching Carpentry. I only noticed it because I got fed up with how... misdirected all the teaching was and decided to switch majors. As it turns out, the one GD course that's required for the Minor but not the Major is actually better at teaching pure design than any other course I've taken in the program. It is hideously and endlessly frustrating.



Gettin' mad on the internet

-snip-

We could always use more jaded ex-BFA’s in ACS, y’know

Settle Down; You Got The Wrong Guy

Show Content

SpoilerBasically, the primary issues with the textbook we are using in this class (Adams, Fundamentals of Game Design) are threefold:
- It is more or less centered from experience acquired in the world of game design and marketing for large commercial operations... and a long time ago at that. I doubt it completely reflects how the job works at those kinds of companies in the present, and it certainly does not hold up in light of the indie-splosion of the past few years, where you are winging a lot of things and are your own lord and master. He strongly admonishes against things that will make games unmarketable, when really you can get away with lots of those things if that doesn’t matter.
- Most of it was clearly written a long time ago and hasn’t really been updated for the latest revision from 2009. Things have changed since then; we’ve had that aforementioned indie-splosion, MMOs are not the subscription cash cow they used to be, there are now lots of people who play smartphone games exclusively, and so forth. Sure, some things should be timeless principles, but few of even those principles have been written down in such a way as to keep them timeless.
- The book often consists of long-winded descriptions that miss the forest for the trees (I consider the chapter “Storytelling and Narrative” to be actively harmful to aspiring game writers, though—that is a rant for another time).

On the other hand, I wouldn’t say there is a problem with it telling you how various forms of camera controls work (the book tries to be platform agnostic, and does look outside computer games). It’s just that L2/R2 camera controls are downright antiquated now and weren’t that common in 2006 (the date of the first edition), either, and we keep coming across hilarious signs of decay like this.

Basically, this book is not about game design as in game mechanics but as the whole package. It would be appropriate for a game designer to be designing camera controls (maybe the only other kind of designer—by title, anyway—you would want to put in charge of that sort of is a UX designer), as the title itself is fairly broad, and such broadly differing responsibilities would be divided amongst a team of designers on a large project.

I certainly can’t say I recommend this book, but I’m stuck with it for the semester. Plus I don’t know a better one for what it aims to do, and it will probably still warn a lot of students who read it about making very common but critical mistakes (N.B.: Adams is the guy who curates the annual “Bad Game Designer, No Twinkie!” series), so it is better than no such book at all. If given many more authors and 20 years of straight up revision, I’m sure it could be refined into the encyclopedia of game design we’d all want to have. But then it would never make it to print.

The up side is that since it does try to broadly cover all of game design including a few of the more forgotten corners of history, it’s given me a lot of ideas for things to throw in my kitchen-sink “dream” game engine codebase.

From a cursory glance, his more recent book on game mechanics (Adams & Dorman, Game Mechanics: Advanced Game Design) seems considerably more practical and less infuriating but I haven’t really had a chance to get into it.

tl;dr: this book is more like an elaborate glossary than a guide

Also also, game design, like other fields of design, can be described as being uncomfortably stuck between “an art” and “a science”. The science can be taught. In games, miraculously, some of it even is, though in the grand scheme of things we’re probably more stuck on, say, the (metaphorical) nuts and bolts than on assembling (metaphorical) working machines. I think designers get just teensy bits better at that each year. The art, on the other hand... well, that’s where you get off into that unresolvable debate that every art has, as to whether you can even teach it or if it comes from some innate miracle-spark or years of plugging at it with plenty of self-introspection or whatever.

I can safely say I kind of suck at designing games at present.

People who are in game design courses or who had them, how much of what was taught was actually about the fundamentals of game design and how much is detail stuff? The person I know who understands how video games work and should work best comes from a background of amateur board game design, and I'm wondering if that is actually better at preparing designers than all the coursework is.