Everyone's talking about Dead Space 3 now. Most of them are pretty much saying what I would probably say if I played it: "it's not scary". "the constant money-shop pestering is annoying", "well, it's fun when they stop with the bullshit."
I won't be buying it. I wasn't pleased with Dead Space 2 - it was formulaic and boring to me. I tried to think about why.
The general theory about scary games is that the main character needs to have no real power. You get scared because you can't really win - you can just claw your way towards desperate survival.
I'm not sure I buy that theory 100%, because System Shock 2 was scary as hell. So was one of the Aliens vs Predators games, although I can never remember which is which given their Capcom-esque naming conventions. In both games you play heavily armored space marines capable of taking down any enemy you face. Even the bosses are usually brought down by simply shooting them a lot. But they're pretty scary.
Dead Space was kinda scary. Dead Space 2 was scary for about an hour, maybe. Crew Cut Beefy White Guy #102,911,158 cuts his way through the two games pretty much the same way, so why is one scarier and the other not? Why are neither as scary as Aliens vs Predators Ultra Turbo Gold Edition? Hell, why is House of the Dead 2 (Suffer like G did?) scarier than Dead Space 2?
I think it's my immersion in the threat. That is me, the player. How threatening the world feels to me.
In both System Shock 2 and AvP, the threatening world was really tangible. It was extremely rare for either game to feel "cheap". Every threat you ran into felt like it belonged. Of course there's a mech in there. Fuck, the room is labeled "mech storage". None of the threats are popped into existence solely as a transparent challenge to the player. You are in this hellish world, and it is tangible. It works like the world would work.
On the other hand, Dead Space 2 (and 3) both suffer from serious monster-closet disease, where enemies basically just randomly run into rooms to give the player a challenge. There's not really any reason why the monsters constantly attack the decontamination chambers. There's no reason for them to come crawling out of the walls right at this moment. They just do it because it's their job to scare the player. It's a haunted house ride instead of a horror game.
Of course, the challenges making sense are not the only thing that makes games scary. There's also how often you die. And that number should be extreeeeeeeemely close to "once".
Dying is a constant threat in Dead Space 2. On the other hand, in truly scary games, it's actually pretty easy to beat any one encounter. The question is how many resources you come out of it with. If three dogs jump in through the window, you probably have enough time to blow them all away... but how many bullets did you waste? Is it maybe better to try and use a shitty weapon to save good ammo? Maybe even the knife - but then you might actually die!
Dying in a scary game should be close to taboo, because dying means getting to try the same damn thing again and again and again. It's not scary to die when you respawn at a checkpoint. It's scary to reach the end boss with only a few bullets left.
Dead Space 2 features a huge number of cheap deaths - presumably because they want you to see the implausible death animations they've created. More than once I died after completing an objective, and it reset me back to an old checkpoint. This isn't scary. It's fucking annoying.
Death isn't scary in a video game. It's annoying. Saving your progress when you have only a few bullets left is scary.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Friday, February 01, 2013
Action Games: Alternate Play
Since starting in Unity, I've been analyzing action games a lot. Action games are not something I've had a lot of experience designing.
I've starting to form a complicated opinion on action games and the nature of avatars. I've refined the term "action gameplay" to specifically mean any action taken while in a world with noticeable time pressure. So, yeah, shooting an approaching enemy is an action mechanic. But so is throwing a switch or jumping a crevasse, as long as those things happen in a situation where time pressure exists - such as if you're being shot at.
Right now, I'm working on the idea that the avatar is the critical component in classifying an action game. So, with that in mind, there are a few "classes" of action game mechanic.
Direct-action mechanics are one where your avatar has an obvious action they can take and it has an obvious, shallow effect. For example, shooting someone, leaping a chasm, opening a floodgate, etc. In general, these are actions where replacing your avatar with a talking rabbit plush toy would make them obviously not work.
Complex-action mechanics are ones where the game does a lot of your avatar-directing for you, or you have another tier of management on your character. For example, the ability to switch between several weapons, managing inventory, context commands more complicated than "use", dialog trees, and so on. If you replace your avatar with a talking rabbit plush toy and think "well, it makes just as much sense either way", then it's probably a complex-action mechanic.
Indirect-action mechanics are ones where the avatar doesn't act directly. His position and activities don't really matter. This is things like ordering soldiers around, cooking food, hacking computers, timing-based dance minigames...
Here's an example. You play an adventurer pushing your way through an alien city. You want to pick up that clay pot.
Direct-action version: you walk over and pick it up. You are now carrying a clay pot in your hands. Your hands are full of clay pot.
Complex-action version: you walk over and add the clay pot to your inventory.
Indirect-action version: you click on the pot and add it to your inventory regardless of where in the room the avatar is.
Here another example: you want to kill a bad guy with your magic blammies.
Direct-action version: aim at the bad guy and click. The spell shoots from you to him.
Complex-action version: click on the bad guy and select a spell, or visa-versa. The spell shoots from you to him.
Indirect-action version: click on the bad guy, and he is affected by the spell regardless of where you're standing.
This can get kind of fuzzy. For example, maybe you're playing a lane-shooter. The very act of targeting someone automatically moves your avatar to line up with them. Is that complex or indirect? I would argue complex, but the point is that these are just basic ideas, not laws. Similarly, most games have a combination of these kinds of mechanics: most shooter games are direct-action games with an inventory, at the very least.
Anyway, I'm just puttering around with these theories because I'm trying to think of good direct-action mechanics that aren't violent. I've come up with a few, but I'd love to hear more.
I've starting to form a complicated opinion on action games and the nature of avatars. I've refined the term "action gameplay" to specifically mean any action taken while in a world with noticeable time pressure. So, yeah, shooting an approaching enemy is an action mechanic. But so is throwing a switch or jumping a crevasse, as long as those things happen in a situation where time pressure exists - such as if you're being shot at.
Right now, I'm working on the idea that the avatar is the critical component in classifying an action game. So, with that in mind, there are a few "classes" of action game mechanic.
Direct-action mechanics are one where your avatar has an obvious action they can take and it has an obvious, shallow effect. For example, shooting someone, leaping a chasm, opening a floodgate, etc. In general, these are actions where replacing your avatar with a talking rabbit plush toy would make them obviously not work.
Complex-action mechanics are ones where the game does a lot of your avatar-directing for you, or you have another tier of management on your character. For example, the ability to switch between several weapons, managing inventory, context commands more complicated than "use", dialog trees, and so on. If you replace your avatar with a talking rabbit plush toy and think "well, it makes just as much sense either way", then it's probably a complex-action mechanic.
Indirect-action mechanics are ones where the avatar doesn't act directly. His position and activities don't really matter. This is things like ordering soldiers around, cooking food, hacking computers, timing-based dance minigames...
Here's an example. You play an adventurer pushing your way through an alien city. You want to pick up that clay pot.
Direct-action version: you walk over and pick it up. You are now carrying a clay pot in your hands. Your hands are full of clay pot.
Complex-action version: you walk over and add the clay pot to your inventory.
Indirect-action version: you click on the pot and add it to your inventory regardless of where in the room the avatar is.
Here another example: you want to kill a bad guy with your magic blammies.
Direct-action version: aim at the bad guy and click. The spell shoots from you to him.
Complex-action version: click on the bad guy and select a spell, or visa-versa. The spell shoots from you to him.
Indirect-action version: click on the bad guy, and he is affected by the spell regardless of where you're standing.
This can get kind of fuzzy. For example, maybe you're playing a lane-shooter. The very act of targeting someone automatically moves your avatar to line up with them. Is that complex or indirect? I would argue complex, but the point is that these are just basic ideas, not laws. Similarly, most games have a combination of these kinds of mechanics: most shooter games are direct-action games with an inventory, at the very least.
Anyway, I'm just puttering around with these theories because I'm trying to think of good direct-action mechanics that aren't violent. I've come up with a few, but I'd love to hear more.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Third Person Mouse Camera
Recently I've learned to create human(oid) models and animations well enough that I can actually start creating characters rather than dummy bodies. One of the things I've become addicted to is the idea that the character animations need to "understand" the world.
For example, I built a cartoon rig that can walk or run around, but when they get near something, they automatically interact with it in some kind of passive way. Running their hand along a wall that's too close, or putting their back to it if in stealth mode. Automatically looking at and reaching out for grabbable items. Ducking under or sidling through gaps that are technically large enough for them to just go through without such actions.
I really feel that these activities ground the player in the world. If the avatar is interacting with the world, then the player is getting that feedback and, in turn, the player is more "in" the world.
But I've run into an interesting problem: the third person mouse cam.
Not the programming of it. The "shoulder cam" is actually pretty easy to create in Unity. The problem is the gameplay it supports. Or doesn't support.
Shoulder-cam is not really very good for precise shooters. Instead, you get "action" shooters like Tomb Raider, where you just fire on the enemy in general, not with the level of precision you might get with first person cameras. This can be fun, especially if you configure the mouselook such that up/down doesn't change the vertical position you're aiming at, but instead whether the camera is squatting on your shoulder or flying far above. These settings can produce intense shooter action games.
You can do platforming, Prince-of-Persia style. Tomb Raider style, again. I think this mode of gameplay is overly linear, though: I don't really feel like creating such a linear design, and would prefer something more open-world for my immersion-centric approach.
The core difficulty, to me, is that the shoulder cam specializes at the middle distance. It's really good at targeting things that are three or four meters away. Action shooting happens at around that range, as does most platforming. At longer range you're better off with a first-person camera or, alternately, a proper birds-eye cam. Both allow you to finely target distant things. If you're up closer than three meters, your orientation and position begin to get muddy in respect to where the targets are, and things feel mushy and confusing. So you'd normally lock down the axes and go with something like a side view, where your movements can't accidentally make you face in awkward directions.
There are ways around these problems, but fundamentally I'm interested in trying to use the middle distance well. Let's assume that I'm vetoing action shooters and plaformers - perhaps those elements will exist in some amount, but they won't be the core gameplay. What else is left?
Map configuration/construction is one possibility. While Minecraft and its clones tend to be first person, all the action actually happens at the middle range. So a third-person world configuration/construction game should be possible, and even provide for more entertaining platforming.
Another thing that happens at the middle distance is socializing, so it's possible you might be able to create a game around the idea of interacting with people. Not sure how to make that a proper game, although I'll think about it.
Monster/robot training is another one you could do, where you feed/train/program your pets at middle distances, then watch them go off and fight or whatever.
Anything else?
For example, I built a cartoon rig that can walk or run around, but when they get near something, they automatically interact with it in some kind of passive way. Running their hand along a wall that's too close, or putting their back to it if in stealth mode. Automatically looking at and reaching out for grabbable items. Ducking under or sidling through gaps that are technically large enough for them to just go through without such actions.
I really feel that these activities ground the player in the world. If the avatar is interacting with the world, then the player is getting that feedback and, in turn, the player is more "in" the world.
But I've run into an interesting problem: the third person mouse cam.
Not the programming of it. The "shoulder cam" is actually pretty easy to create in Unity. The problem is the gameplay it supports. Or doesn't support.
Shoulder-cam is not really very good for precise shooters. Instead, you get "action" shooters like Tomb Raider, where you just fire on the enemy in general, not with the level of precision you might get with first person cameras. This can be fun, especially if you configure the mouselook such that up/down doesn't change the vertical position you're aiming at, but instead whether the camera is squatting on your shoulder or flying far above. These settings can produce intense shooter action games.
You can do platforming, Prince-of-Persia style. Tomb Raider style, again. I think this mode of gameplay is overly linear, though: I don't really feel like creating such a linear design, and would prefer something more open-world for my immersion-centric approach.
The core difficulty, to me, is that the shoulder cam specializes at the middle distance. It's really good at targeting things that are three or four meters away. Action shooting happens at around that range, as does most platforming. At longer range you're better off with a first-person camera or, alternately, a proper birds-eye cam. Both allow you to finely target distant things. If you're up closer than three meters, your orientation and position begin to get muddy in respect to where the targets are, and things feel mushy and confusing. So you'd normally lock down the axes and go with something like a side view, where your movements can't accidentally make you face in awkward directions.
There are ways around these problems, but fundamentally I'm interested in trying to use the middle distance well. Let's assume that I'm vetoing action shooters and plaformers - perhaps those elements will exist in some amount, but they won't be the core gameplay. What else is left?
Map configuration/construction is one possibility. While Minecraft and its clones tend to be first person, all the action actually happens at the middle range. So a third-person world configuration/construction game should be possible, and even provide for more entertaining platforming.
Another thing that happens at the middle distance is socializing, so it's possible you might be able to create a game around the idea of interacting with people. Not sure how to make that a proper game, although I'll think about it.
Monster/robot training is another one you could do, where you feed/train/program your pets at middle distances, then watch them go off and fight or whatever.
Anything else?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Snap-Together Colonies
I've been playing some shooter-adventure-survival-horrory games recently. Not my favorite genre, not since it peaked with System Shock 2, but it still contains a lot of goodies.
One of the things I really like about them is that you feel like you're part of the world. Most of the plot points involve getting somewhere, fixing something, hacking something - the monsters are literally just in the way. Even when it does come time to exterminate the monsters, you do it by building or hacking some part of the world. Sure, there's generally also a climactic battle, but you win by using the world against them.
There are literally as many examples as there are shooter-adventure-survival-horrory games. Venting the queen out an airlock, lighting sacred candles, putting poison in the ventilation, setting the self-destruct, using vaccine syringes after stunning the boss, jury-rigging the solar array to fry it... it's so central to the concept, I think it's why most shooter-adventure-survival-horrory games... let's just call them SASH games... it's why most SASH games are science fiction, and most of the rest are in a modern world where you have magic rituals. These settings give you a world where there's lots of stuff you can do to use the world.
The settings kind of remind me of lego - the pieces snap together like modules. The residential section has a solar tower "snapped" onto the top of it, so when you need to restore power you can use that rather than trying to reconnect or restart the main fusion reactor. Or maybe the residential section has a commercial section snapped on, in which case there's no natural light and no easy backup power source... but you can evacuate into the commercial district and hope to survive. Evacuating into a solar tower is like evacuating to the attic of a burning house.
I began to wonder: can you build a game where you can construct facilities, but then you can also run through the facilities as they are invaded by aliens?
In this situation, each "module" you can snap into your little colony has a purpose in terms of the basic function of your colony, yes. But it also has a purpose in terms of how it helps or hinders the player when they have to play through it live. The alien attack never plays out the same way twice, so it's not guaranteed that things will unfold as you expect. Maybe this time, the aliens actually came in through the solar tower. Or cultists took over the residential zone, and you have to fight through them in order to configure the tower and get power flowing to other sectors through the residential zone.
A basic combination of statistical use, resource chains, and downfall variations can be used to make all this happen.
The solar tower is the start of a power resource chain, supplying power to whatever module is beneath it and, from there, to other modules connected to that module. However, although cheap to build, it is an ongoing expense, so it is generally mothballed once the proper reactors come on-line. Downfall variations are slim: as a resource source, its primary downfall purpose is to be turned on again. However, it can also be used to shine burning bright light onto other surface modules, or can be collapsed to deal catastrophic damage to the module below it and in any one direction.
On the other hand, a bio lab has massive downfall variants - everything from evil monster experiments run wild to 95% completed vaccines to cultists who want to destroy it. Some downfall variants require you to establish a supply chain (of power, life support, or transport), while other downfall variants challenge you to fight off enemies.
Hm!
Taking into account how things fall apart when aliens invade could make an otherwise pretty samey "build a station" game rather interesting.
One of the things I really like about them is that you feel like you're part of the world. Most of the plot points involve getting somewhere, fixing something, hacking something - the monsters are literally just in the way. Even when it does come time to exterminate the monsters, you do it by building or hacking some part of the world. Sure, there's generally also a climactic battle, but you win by using the world against them.
There are literally as many examples as there are shooter-adventure-survival-horrory games. Venting the queen out an airlock, lighting sacred candles, putting poison in the ventilation, setting the self-destruct, using vaccine syringes after stunning the boss, jury-rigging the solar array to fry it... it's so central to the concept, I think it's why most shooter-adventure-survival-horrory games... let's just call them SASH games... it's why most SASH games are science fiction, and most of the rest are in a modern world where you have magic rituals. These settings give you a world where there's lots of stuff you can do to use the world.
The settings kind of remind me of lego - the pieces snap together like modules. The residential section has a solar tower "snapped" onto the top of it, so when you need to restore power you can use that rather than trying to reconnect or restart the main fusion reactor. Or maybe the residential section has a commercial section snapped on, in which case there's no natural light and no easy backup power source... but you can evacuate into the commercial district and hope to survive. Evacuating into a solar tower is like evacuating to the attic of a burning house.
I began to wonder: can you build a game where you can construct facilities, but then you can also run through the facilities as they are invaded by aliens?
In this situation, each "module" you can snap into your little colony has a purpose in terms of the basic function of your colony, yes. But it also has a purpose in terms of how it helps or hinders the player when they have to play through it live. The alien attack never plays out the same way twice, so it's not guaranteed that things will unfold as you expect. Maybe this time, the aliens actually came in through the solar tower. Or cultists took over the residential zone, and you have to fight through them in order to configure the tower and get power flowing to other sectors through the residential zone.
A basic combination of statistical use, resource chains, and downfall variations can be used to make all this happen.
The solar tower is the start of a power resource chain, supplying power to whatever module is beneath it and, from there, to other modules connected to that module. However, although cheap to build, it is an ongoing expense, so it is generally mothballed once the proper reactors come on-line. Downfall variations are slim: as a resource source, its primary downfall purpose is to be turned on again. However, it can also be used to shine burning bright light onto other surface modules, or can be collapsed to deal catastrophic damage to the module below it and in any one direction.
On the other hand, a bio lab has massive downfall variants - everything from evil monster experiments run wild to 95% completed vaccines to cultists who want to destroy it. Some downfall variants require you to establish a supply chain (of power, life support, or transport), while other downfall variants challenge you to fight off enemies.
Hm!
Taking into account how things fall apart when aliens invade could make an otherwise pretty samey "build a station" game rather interesting.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
DLC and Saying Stuff
You know, I think I figured out why I hate DLC so much. Even free DLC.
It's because I think of game rules as having a lifetime. A game is simply the thing you do while exploring the rules. Eventually, the mechanics run out of things to say, and the game is over.
These days, most games don't have much to say. But the content goes on and on and on and on. I can't count the number of games where I say "well, I think I've done all there is to do in this game" and I'm only halfway through.
The game still has a plot, still has half a map left to explore... but I already know how it will play out. It has nothing meaningful left to discover. And, to be frank, there aren't any games with storylines and characters impressive enough to make me want to finish anyway.
So, when I see a game that has DLC, my first thought is "not only will the DLC fail to make the game any more interesting, it also strongly implies that the developers don't know what they are trying to say."
...
That was the important thing I wanted to say about DLC. Here's some unimportant stuff.
There are games where the primary draw of the game is socializing with your friends. In those games, even simple mechanics are supported by chatting with your friends. Is DLC okay in this kind of game?
Well, I don't play that sort of game, so I don't know the answer. If I want to play a game with my friends, I pick one that we haven't played to death. I pick one that still has something to say. Sometimes I pick one that I think will talk most loudly to my friends, sometimes I aim for one that I still want to see more of. But the choice is still about the game.
The idea of a giant virtual world is a fun one, but there are some fundamental problems. I think that today's virtual worlds are a big mess of different aims, and they have completely different things to say to different kinds of people. The cash shop in these games has goods aimed at each kind of player.
But in the end, if I'm going to be part of a virtual world, it'll be because I want to make things. Not simply live there in some vacuous virtual facsimile of pure consumerism. DLC and the ability for players to make things are diametrically opposed. So, for me, DLC in a virtual world says something a bit different.
In another game, it says "The developers don't know what they are trying to say". In a virtual world, it says "The developers don't care what you are trying to say".
...
The reason I bring this up is because I am creating diving game prototypes. The atmosphere of diving down into the depths is really compelling. But the things that experience has to say are slow things.
The experience of being in the dark, isolated, and probably a bit lost is not one which strikes instantly. It's something that grows in the back of your mind as you play. Moreover, although it is a slow thing, it is something that doesn't have infinite depth.
What I'm saying is that the diving game speaks about that kind of thing, but the sweet spot is probably 30 minutes in. Before that, it's mute. After that, you've heard it and are reaching out your hands in the darkness for something else.
So... the diving game has to have something faster to say, and something to say beyond the darkness.
And that's not so easy to plan out.
It's because I think of game rules as having a lifetime. A game is simply the thing you do while exploring the rules. Eventually, the mechanics run out of things to say, and the game is over.
These days, most games don't have much to say. But the content goes on and on and on and on. I can't count the number of games where I say "well, I think I've done all there is to do in this game" and I'm only halfway through.
The game still has a plot, still has half a map left to explore... but I already know how it will play out. It has nothing meaningful left to discover. And, to be frank, there aren't any games with storylines and characters impressive enough to make me want to finish anyway.
So, when I see a game that has DLC, my first thought is "not only will the DLC fail to make the game any more interesting, it also strongly implies that the developers don't know what they are trying to say."
...
That was the important thing I wanted to say about DLC. Here's some unimportant stuff.
There are games where the primary draw of the game is socializing with your friends. In those games, even simple mechanics are supported by chatting with your friends. Is DLC okay in this kind of game?
Well, I don't play that sort of game, so I don't know the answer. If I want to play a game with my friends, I pick one that we haven't played to death. I pick one that still has something to say. Sometimes I pick one that I think will talk most loudly to my friends, sometimes I aim for one that I still want to see more of. But the choice is still about the game.
The idea of a giant virtual world is a fun one, but there are some fundamental problems. I think that today's virtual worlds are a big mess of different aims, and they have completely different things to say to different kinds of people. The cash shop in these games has goods aimed at each kind of player.
But in the end, if I'm going to be part of a virtual world, it'll be because I want to make things. Not simply live there in some vacuous virtual facsimile of pure consumerism. DLC and the ability for players to make things are diametrically opposed. So, for me, DLC in a virtual world says something a bit different.
In another game, it says "The developers don't know what they are trying to say". In a virtual world, it says "The developers don't care what you are trying to say".
...
The reason I bring this up is because I am creating diving game prototypes. The atmosphere of diving down into the depths is really compelling. But the things that experience has to say are slow things.
The experience of being in the dark, isolated, and probably a bit lost is not one which strikes instantly. It's something that grows in the back of your mind as you play. Moreover, although it is a slow thing, it is something that doesn't have infinite depth.
What I'm saying is that the diving game speaks about that kind of thing, but the sweet spot is probably 30 minutes in. Before that, it's mute. After that, you've heard it and are reaching out your hands in the darkness for something else.
So... the diving game has to have something faster to say, and something to say beyond the darkness.
And that's not so easy to plan out.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Roguelike Rail Shooter (Paper Edition)
I built a very simple paper prototype to explore the concept of a rails shooter that gets generated on the fly.
The rules are simple: every node in the game is built out of a topology, gross motion, fine motion, transition, and one or more enemy presentations. I didn't even make unique enemies, by the way.
These can have slightly unique results/conditions.
So, for example, the first node in a random bit might be
TOPOLOGY: Large room full of shelves. High chance of enemies hiding in shelves.
GROSS MOTION: Run through and then turn around to face the enemies
FINE MOTION: Slow-motion opportunity
TRANSITION: Wall explodes (cannot leave room)
PRESENTING:
Wave 1: Dread enemies (corpses that get up)
Wave 2: Popup challenge (enemies that just pop up at close range)
As a result, this is what the player would experience with this node:
"Ah, it's a room full of shelves and corpses. We're sprinting through. Turning around and... oh, a slow-motion power up and the corpses are waking up! Ah, killed the zombies and AGH THERE'S ONE IN MY FACE! Okay, let's go through the doo- AGH THE WALL EXPLODED!"
Of course, this sort of very basic list system can't really reflect the difficulty of implementing this stuff actually happening in a 3D world in real time, but it does allow you to see how this stuff could be made to happen.
In this case, I rolled up about ten nodes, and after the wall explodes things go like this:
Still inside the shelving room. After the wall explodes, you turn and see the boss dropping a miniboss through the rubble. Fight!
You run to a maze of tight halls and circle through them until you kill the eight or so zombies within. Then you crawl into an air vent.
In the air vent, there's nothing. But peering out of the air vent is a cluster of enemies around an exploding barrel.
Jumping out of the air vent onto a straight stairwell, you first look down the staircase, then run down it. You're staring at the exit, but then you spin and look up the staircase - zombies are stumbling down it! Kill them! (Please note that "camera pointed uselessly at wall while enemies creep up from behind" is actually a fine motion event, not me interpreting an event to be like this.)
Through the door is the same shelving room you initially fled. You decide to stop and clear the room of the steady stream of zombies coming in from the broken wall. There is a quicktime event (shooting moving targets to avoid terrain damage is a common staple) where you dive through the broken wall
The medium-size windowed room through the broken wall has no enemies in it, but you can see enemies out of the window - and snipe at them, if you like. You pass through the door and seal it.
There's a large room with a small ramp on the other side. There's no enemies but, halfway through the room, there's a direction sting. Something like "Through there! We're getting close to the loading docks!" Then there's a sprint through a pack of slow, damaged enemies to crawl under a vertical door.
You end up in a hall packed with doors, and decide to clear it. A bystander is caught up, and you can rescue them by shooting a steady stream of incoming enemies and a miniboss. Unfortunately, the first door you try is locked.
You move around this large hall repeatedly, hopping around a bit, while shooting the various scattered zombies coming in through the doors. Then the boss arrives and carves away a big chunk of the level before winging off.
Still in the hall of doors, you stand your ground. There is a gore note as the boss drops a pack of corpses as it leaves. After falling wetly to the ground, the corpses stand up and attack, simultaneous with a few zombies coming in from another door. After killing them, you go through the damaged area...
This is the sort of progression you can easily get when you think of more than just map layout and enemies. Even with just generic enemies, you can see the framework for an interesting sequence.
However, the content required to build this is way out of my league, so I'll focus on maybe doing something similar on a much smaller scale.
The rules are simple: every node in the game is built out of a topology, gross motion, fine motion, transition, and one or more enemy presentations. I didn't even make unique enemies, by the way.
These can have slightly unique results/conditions.
So, for example, the first node in a random bit might be
TOPOLOGY: Large room full of shelves. High chance of enemies hiding in shelves.
GROSS MOTION: Run through and then turn around to face the enemies
FINE MOTION: Slow-motion opportunity
TRANSITION: Wall explodes (cannot leave room)
PRESENTING:
Wave 1: Dread enemies (corpses that get up)
Wave 2: Popup challenge (enemies that just pop up at close range)
As a result, this is what the player would experience with this node:
"Ah, it's a room full of shelves and corpses. We're sprinting through. Turning around and... oh, a slow-motion power up and the corpses are waking up! Ah, killed the zombies and AGH THERE'S ONE IN MY FACE! Okay, let's go through the doo- AGH THE WALL EXPLODED!"
Of course, this sort of very basic list system can't really reflect the difficulty of implementing this stuff actually happening in a 3D world in real time, but it does allow you to see how this stuff could be made to happen.
In this case, I rolled up about ten nodes, and after the wall explodes things go like this:
Still inside the shelving room. After the wall explodes, you turn and see the boss dropping a miniboss through the rubble. Fight!
You run to a maze of tight halls and circle through them until you kill the eight or so zombies within. Then you crawl into an air vent.
In the air vent, there's nothing. But peering out of the air vent is a cluster of enemies around an exploding barrel.
Jumping out of the air vent onto a straight stairwell, you first look down the staircase, then run down it. You're staring at the exit, but then you spin and look up the staircase - zombies are stumbling down it! Kill them! (Please note that "camera pointed uselessly at wall while enemies creep up from behind" is actually a fine motion event, not me interpreting an event to be like this.)
Through the door is the same shelving room you initially fled. You decide to stop and clear the room of the steady stream of zombies coming in from the broken wall. There is a quicktime event (shooting moving targets to avoid terrain damage is a common staple) where you dive through the broken wall
The medium-size windowed room through the broken wall has no enemies in it, but you can see enemies out of the window - and snipe at them, if you like. You pass through the door and seal it.
There's a large room with a small ramp on the other side. There's no enemies but, halfway through the room, there's a direction sting. Something like "Through there! We're getting close to the loading docks!" Then there's a sprint through a pack of slow, damaged enemies to crawl under a vertical door.
You end up in a hall packed with doors, and decide to clear it. A bystander is caught up, and you can rescue them by shooting a steady stream of incoming enemies and a miniboss. Unfortunately, the first door you try is locked.
You move around this large hall repeatedly, hopping around a bit, while shooting the various scattered zombies coming in through the doors. Then the boss arrives and carves away a big chunk of the level before winging off.
Still in the hall of doors, you stand your ground. There is a gore note as the boss drops a pack of corpses as it leaves. After falling wetly to the ground, the corpses stand up and attack, simultaneous with a few zombies coming in from another door. After killing them, you go through the damaged area...
This is the sort of progression you can easily get when you think of more than just map layout and enemies. Even with just generic enemies, you can see the framework for an interesting sequence.
However, the content required to build this is way out of my league, so I'll focus on maybe doing something similar on a much smaller scale.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Roguelike Rail Shooter
I was thinking about whether you could make a roguelike rails shooter.
Obviously, you could create just a chain of rooms with pop-up challenges. But a rails shooter is a lot more than that. So let's consider it.
Let's split the content into four fundamental types.
1) Topology
2) Timing and motion
3) Enemies
4) Enemy presentation
We can separate the level out into premade topolgogical segments - random room-like objects. The rooms are not static - their elements can be permuted in various ways. A door could be locked, a roof collapsed, etc. This is important because the other three types need to be able to affect the topology to some extent.
The rooms get stitched together not just at the doors, but at the windows and overhangs and broken walls and collapsed roofs.
Since it's a rails shooter, how you move through the level and aim the camera is a major factor in the gameplay. This means you have to program in a lot of things like looking around, backing up, diving forward, and so on. These can be largely independent of the topology, except in that the topology has to allow it. Topology pieces come with several established possible paths, and you basically just stitch them together (including using multiple paths through the same room when possible). But you combine that path with the pacing and camera work to support your enemy presentation needs.
Enemy presentation is the key element of all rails shooters. The enemies aren't just arbitrary pop-up targets like a gallery shooter. They have an existence in the level. They associate with the topology: range, height, and obscuring stuff. They associate with the timing and motion, to: surprises, peeking, cover, parallax, spinning, glimpses. They combine, too: sniper opportunities, firing through windows, down from a walkway, up onto the roof...
Even further, enemy presentation also involves how many enemies, whether they are widely separated on the screen or clumped, and so on.
So, is it possible to make a game out of this?
I dunno. I think maybe I'll try a paper prototype.
Obviously, you could create just a chain of rooms with pop-up challenges. But a rails shooter is a lot more than that. So let's consider it.
Let's split the content into four fundamental types.
1) Topology
2) Timing and motion
3) Enemies
4) Enemy presentation
We can separate the level out into premade topolgogical segments - random room-like objects. The rooms are not static - their elements can be permuted in various ways. A door could be locked, a roof collapsed, etc. This is important because the other three types need to be able to affect the topology to some extent.
The rooms get stitched together not just at the doors, but at the windows and overhangs and broken walls and collapsed roofs.
Since it's a rails shooter, how you move through the level and aim the camera is a major factor in the gameplay. This means you have to program in a lot of things like looking around, backing up, diving forward, and so on. These can be largely independent of the topology, except in that the topology has to allow it. Topology pieces come with several established possible paths, and you basically just stitch them together (including using multiple paths through the same room when possible). But you combine that path with the pacing and camera work to support your enemy presentation needs.
Enemy presentation is the key element of all rails shooters. The enemies aren't just arbitrary pop-up targets like a gallery shooter. They have an existence in the level. They associate with the topology: range, height, and obscuring stuff. They associate with the timing and motion, to: surprises, peeking, cover, parallax, spinning, glimpses. They combine, too: sniper opportunities, firing through windows, down from a walkway, up onto the roof...
Even further, enemy presentation also involves how many enemies, whether they are widely separated on the screen or clumped, and so on.
So, is it possible to make a game out of this?
I dunno. I think maybe I'll try a paper prototype.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)