Disqus - Latest Comments for loganbooker

Re: Retreading the Path

loganbooker — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:26:33 -0000

Engagement. That's the word I'm looking for!

Like graphics, I feel some are starting to use novelty in place of engagement. We need to keep a close eye on what defines a game, even if that definition can never be finalised or explained in full.

The head-blowing-off stuff was more about how boring and uninspired The Graveyard was, not that it filled me with rage and whatnot. I didn't feel at all compelled to buy the full product or support the team that did it. It felt wanky, made for the sole purpose of winning awards, and that's why it rubbed me the wrong way.

Tim, that's a fair definition, and it definitely highlights a sticking point for me: Interaction, and the amount of it. I guess there's a threshold I expect to be met or exceeded.

Re: Retreading the Path

loganbooker — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 01:44:12 -0000

I hear what you're saying about fun - it's not the ideal word. Enjoy perhaps?

My point is the player should get something out of playing, be it fun, scares or a raging erection. Otherwise why play in the first place (or come back)? I suppose curiosity is valid (and powerful) and good enough for some. It's just doesn't do it for me. Maybe as hook and the *basis* of a mechanic - exploration, say - but the mere mystery of what a game is about is not enough.

Obviously, people enjoy different things (and engage in them for myriad reasons), and what might force me to take a gun to my head is panacea for others. I enjoy mastery of systems, so if the mechanics are lightweight or absent, then I won't hang around.

Hey, maybe I should give The Path a crack. I get the impression The Graveyard has soured my feelings towards games *I* perceive as being similar.

Re: Retreading the Path

loganbooker — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 22:40:03 -0000

I haven't looked at The Path, but I did play the demo of The Graveyard, which I believe is similar in concept.

Put simply, I wanted to blow my brains out. Maybe my ability to appreciate this sort of thing has diminished in recent years, but I would struggle to label The Graveyard a "game".

According to Wikipedia, the key components of a game include "goals, rules, challenge, and interaction", a list I agree with. Yes, The Graveyard is interactive and there's a goal (reach the bench), but as for rules and a challenge, arguably the most critical elements? Nowhere to be seen.

I think some developers are getting caught up in making something artsy and meaningful rather than, well, fun. Being alternative and edgy for the sake of it. I think it's good to experiment and play around with short projects to try mechanics and themes out, but labelling the results as games is a misnomer.

I will admit though, in relation to The Path, the community response is great. I just feel we need to be clear that there are games, and then there are interactive 3D... movies? I'm not sure what the terminology should be.

Re: Death to Online

loganbooker — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:54:26 -0000

Oh, my bad. None of my ranting was directed at you or your piece. Not in the slightest. I latched onto the "Gamespy is what happens when games journalism dies" and went off on a tangent.

In the future my comments should probably be about the post they're attached to. :P

EDIT: I should mention that I don't claim to be an industry veteran, simply that the time I *have* spent has been extremely eye-opening regarding the realities of games development. It's made me realise how disconnected it is from the mainstream media that represents it.

Re: Death to Online

loganbooker — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:37:49 -0000

I agree - I don't think you need to be a designer (or artist or programmer) either.

My point is that a lot of games journalists have a vague understanding of how games are actually made, yet feel informed enough to present their awkward, infantile comprehension as fact. Why wouldn't they - there's no one out there to correct them.

This conjured fact is consumed by readers, who then spread this misinformation. It's disheartening to be represented in such a fashion.

There are a lot of areas where a journalist's opinion would be dismissed immediately if they had little understanding of the underlying processes involved in the industry they're reporting on - politics, education, finance, etc. Sure, they may never have worked as a politician or stockbroker, but they usually have a firm grasp of how their respective industries operate.

All I ask for is a similar understanding from today's gaming press. It needs to mature, to stop pumping out reviews formed from 20 minutes of gameplay, and actually learn about the industry they're reporting on.

I know I'm coming off as strongly vehement, but it's a topic I am fast becoming passionate about. Games development is a complex process; the simplified, pie-in-the-sky and glamorous world perpetrated by the gaming press today needs to be brought back to Earth by the biggest Acme-branded anvil possible.

Re: Death to Online

loganbooker — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:51:01 -0000

As a games journalist-cum-designer, I can say with confidence the death of the profession isn't restricted to Gamespy. Every day I see at least one op-ed piece about how the industry just doesn't "get it" in some way or another.

I have to groan at the *unfathomable* naivety of such articles. I doubt half the game journos working today have even the slightest idea how a game is made. How can you comment as an expert source when you're not an expert?

Honestly, there are only a few game journos whose work I bother reading these days - let alone whole sites - and I don't see the situation improving without quality control... say a site where developers pick apart this rubbish and give these "journos" a kick in their editorial arses.

And like that, it's a rant!

Re: The End of Hit Points

loganbooker — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:19:30 -0000

I agree, you guys really deserve more love. The only thing that stops me from commenting more is that I'm too busy with my own blogs. :P

Perhaps, along with the criticism, Tim could post potential solutions? I doubt there's a one-size-fits-all system, but it might be enough to take, say, the STO example and elaborate on an alternative. Complaining is an easy thing to do. Designing... not so much.

But I guess he could argue it's up to us game designers to figure out, not him. ;)

I will say that the argument of "fun" plays a big role in why hit points remain fashionable in a computerised gaming world. No one likes being vaporised seconds into a fight. Hit points silently compensate for lag, a limited viewpoint and many other shortcomings of the simulation. They're an easy compromise, to be sure, but a proven one.

The argument of "money" is even more important. As I've said in a previous comment, developers are extremely risk-averse, especially in the current economic climate. Gaming has not proven as resilient to the GFC as everyone thought it'd be, and this is partially why it's one of the industries taking the longest to recover.

Just look at the Oz games industry. The majority of developers that are still around have stuck with safe projects, or those funded by publishers. While this strategy means these devs don't put out innovative, ground-breaking titles every year, it does mean they still *have* the option to.

If I had the choice between something I know works, and something that might, and it was part of a project that a few million dollars had been sunk into - a few million I couldn't afford to lose - I know which way I'd go. Especially a project that's meant to be a cash-printing machine.

Until we're all in a better position money-wise, I wouldn't get your hopes up about any upcoming MMOs. Or any titles, for that matter. Luckily for us, there are developers that can afford to play with fire, thanks to past successes. So it's not all down in the crapper.

Like any industry, games development has some harsh realities you have to accept. It's not all Coke, *coke*, Ferraris and Nerf guns. :)

Re: MMOs I Have Played - Pass It On

loganbooker — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:36:36 -0000

I'd go as far as to say that I associate the acronym "MMO" with "grind" and "commitment" - two words I don't want to link with any game. My excitement factor for a game goes down a metric pantload as soon as I catch a glimpse of those dirty, dirty letters. In fact, it was a major factor that put me off Hellgate: London, back when it was, mostly, a mystery morsel hidden away in Roper's girth.

From a developer's point of view, "MMO" has too many, arguably bad, preconceptions attached to it. Interested parties - gamers, publishers, press - will instantly assume it's a WoW-killer if its from a triple-AAA studio, or some crappy browser game if its from anyone else. As long as you're thinking "it's an MMO", you're going to make comparisons to WoW, and get caught up in everything it does. And the MMO space doesn't need more WoW-clones - it needs good games.

Re: MMOs I Have Played - Pass It On

loganbooker — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:17:46 -0000

World of Warcraft - 60 (on and off) - *****
Vanguard - 1 - *
City of Villians - 3 - ***
Planetside - 12 - ****
Earth & Beyond - 1 - ***
Warhammer Online - 3 - ***

I think I burnt out on WoW, and that's really put me off investing in anything else these days.

My enjoyment of RPGs stems from understanding the underlying systems and optimising my character to get the most from them. I also enjoy exploring... well, finding nigh-unsoloable enemies and soloing them, which one might argue goes against the spirit of what "massive multiplayer" is all about.

Anyway, if it took me some four years to understand WoW in enough detail to enjoy it, the thought of pouring that much into any other game is just... exhausting. I won't do it. I can't. And I'm not talking about stats and equipment - "getting the most" includes making macros, installing and tweaking interface mods, studying strategies, learning a class, etc.

Actually, I've been binging on shooters for the last six months, simply because they don't give me a choice. There's something oddly refreshing about enjoying a game without having to do the equivalent of a university degree, both in content to study and the time taken to absorb it, to properly play it (by my definition of "properly", at least).

Re: Champions: A Step Backwards from City of Heroes

loganbooker — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:31:06 -0000

I'd go as far as to say that the fundamental design of MMOs is showing its age. There are too many assumed "must-have" features - levelling, questing, D&D-like stats, even character generation - and until someone wipes the board clean and starts from scratch (or even using non-MMO, non-RPG games as a starting point), insanely derivative titles like Aion and Champions Online are going to continue to be made.

Sadly, and understandably, board-wiping is just too risky, especially in the current economic climate. With development cycles for MMOs easily in the 2-5 year range and budgets in the millions, trying something unproven is, from a business perspective, exceedingly dumb.