So my League of Legends game guide has been receiving some very good reviews from community members.
[Game Guide] Logistics, Strategy, Tactics
Let me know what you guys think and I'll see about improving it.
Showing posts with label Game Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Game Theory. Show all posts
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Monday, June 28, 2010
Define RPG
What is an RPG?
Simply put, I no longer consider the traditional JRPG (Japanese RPG) formula (a-la Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy) an RPG game. I am rather hesitant to make such a clear assertion though as I feel it would offend many of the fandom. The JRPG has always been "a long walk down a straight hallway" regardless of any illusions any of us might have. Does that prevent the game from being an RPG? Lets cross reference with the definition we picked up.
Is the JRPG a 'game'? Yes. There is player effort involved, and all of those qualities that Juuls talks about.
Is the player assuming the role of one or more characters? Yes, you have your main character or a party of characters.
Is it in a fictional setting? It's a video game right? Then, yes, it's fictional.
Formal System of rule/guidelines? Yes, more complex than I would like to think about, but certainly yes.
Actions taken by players succeed or fail according to said system? Yes it does.
So by strict stringent definitions, the JRPG is indeed an RPG. But that gets me thinking: What game is NOT an RPG?
To answer this concisely, we can strip a few of these qualifiers out.
Fictional Setting, Formal System of Rules, Player Effort.
These three qualities are necessary for all video games worth mentioning.
So the only real question lies in weather or not the player is assuming the role of character or characters.
In this sense, is not Counter-Strike an RPG? How about Team Fortress 2? The player is assuming the role of a soldier with weapons and they go about controlling their avatar to play the game. This goes for any FPS. Yes, there are RPG-FPS hybrids such as Duex Ex, the entire Theif series, Half-Life single player modes, but what prevents the multiplayer from being considered an RPG as well? Certainly not the definition of Role Playing Games. I could go into the exact same argument with RTS games where the player is assuming the role of a military commander and managing tens if not hundreds of individual unit avatars.
To stretch this line of thought further, I was playing Poker Blitz on Facebook. Normally such a game is not an RPG by virtue of the fact that it is the player who is playing the game directly. The player is not assuming any sort of "role". However, one of the first things that happens in the game is that the player creates an avatar to represent himself in the virtual environment. So now, the player controls an avatar. Does this minor cosmetic change make an RPG? Pretty silly huh?
Now lets drop out of the video game world and hop into pen/paper and boardgames. The traditional RPG revolves around pencil/paper, rulebooks, and dice. How about a boardgames? Players usually control characters around the board, so does that mean all boardgames are thus RPGs as well? I can see an argument made for Clue, but as we descend down to games like Scrabble it becomes more of a stretch.
If we look at all of these examples, the moment there is a "character" or "avatar" involved in the game, we're dealing with elements of an RPG. In this sense, the term RPG is far too broad. How do we determine whether a game is an RPG? Clearly, no one views most of the generic FPS games to be RPGs, nor do they think that of RTSs or boardgames.
Back to the top then, the JRPG. Why do we consider such games to be RPGs. Because they contain iconic references to RPG terminology such as Hit Points and Experience Points? Seems rather silly again. Hit point is another work for Health or Stamina or "something that will cause you to lose the game if you don't have some". Experience points are merely a measure of progression. The typical Zelda game never had EXP, instead money, and gaining better items was the form of progression.
I suppose the better question is: what do I expect out of an RPG? Why do I play them? I play them because they give me freedom to create the character I wish, and make the decisions I want.
JRPGs do not give me these liberties. Most CRPGs (computer RPGs) don't either. That is the nature of dealing with videogames though. They lack the imagination of the human mind. However, it is the human mind that pre-programs these games. Variety is possible and enough variety grants the illusion of freedom. So if JRPGs do not have these qualities, what CRPGs do?
Most of the classics actually. The Baldur's Gate trilogy certainly does. As with any videogames, I do not have total freedom, but there are distinct choices I have in character creation which alters playstyle and decision making when it comes to party member selection. In character interaction as well, I have a dialog menu rife with choices. Not always the exact response I would give, but often there is one close enough to satisfy me. Lastly, the storyline is flexible. There's actually a randomized manner in which side quests appear, and it is also dependent on party members present, which generates a unique sequence of events every play through. The manner in which one replies to specific NPCs will change the flow of the story as well.
In stark contrast, the JRPG formula locks the player into a pre-conceived character with personality and statistics already laid out. Sure, there might be some options when it comes to advancing statistics or choice of equipment, however, the progression of the game leaves little to ones imagination. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed FF 5 and FF:Tactics more than the rest of the games. The class system allowed the player to customize the characters to their hearts content. Moreover, the storyline for the game is locked. There is one ending, possibly with minor variations (hello FF6, did you wait for Shadow? Recruit Umaro and Gogo?), but the story doesn't change. Perhaps this is why Chrono Trigger and Ogre Battle stood out in my mind as superior specimens in the atrocity that is your standard JRPG. Actions have consequences. These are two examples that rose above the standard JRPG.
In conclusion, we can see that not all JRPGs are bad. It's not even that they have bells and whistles that mask the bad. In fact, some have the 'good' qualities of RPG gameplay that we look for. However, the basic JRPG model is a shame to the term Role Playing Game. The basic model is devoid of any player effort beyond power-leveling and thus would probably be more enjoyable as a movie.
RPGs should strive to grant freedom and choice. This is perhaps why Bioware RPGs sell so well. All of the Neverwinter Nights games, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, ect. They all contain freedom of character choice. The player is not stuck with an annoying main character that they cannot get rid of. Nor are players stuck with characters that do not fit their playstyle. Varied storyline that combines a bit of randomness and player control over how the story develops. It's times like this when I compare the new Bioware games to their contemporary RPGs and wonder if I'm just being nostalgic in thinking how awesome Baldur's Gate was. Maybe Bioware should release a Baldur's Gate remake with an updated game/graphics engine. Then we could see how well it compares to today's RPGs.
Our good friends at Wikipedia say:
a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictionalsetting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
Well, lets first get into what spurs this question about a term that most of us have already defined in some way shape or form. This comic from VGCats.com is what raises the question.
Simply put, I no longer consider the traditional JRPG (Japanese RPG) formula (a-la Dragon Warrior or Final Fantasy) an RPG game. I am rather hesitant to make such a clear assertion though as I feel it would offend many of the fandom. The JRPG has always been "a long walk down a straight hallway" regardless of any illusions any of us might have. Does that prevent the game from being an RPG? Lets cross reference with the definition we picked up.
Is the JRPG a 'game'? Yes. There is player effort involved, and all of those qualities that Juuls talks about.
Is the player assuming the role of one or more characters? Yes, you have your main character or a party of characters.
Is it in a fictional setting? It's a video game right? Then, yes, it's fictional.
Formal System of rule/guidelines? Yes, more complex than I would like to think about, but certainly yes.
Actions taken by players succeed or fail according to said system? Yes it does.
So by strict stringent definitions, the JRPG is indeed an RPG. But that gets me thinking: What game is NOT an RPG?
To answer this concisely, we can strip a few of these qualifiers out.
Fictional Setting, Formal System of Rules, Player Effort.
These three qualities are necessary for all video games worth mentioning.
So the only real question lies in weather or not the player is assuming the role of character or characters.
In this sense, is not Counter-Strike an RPG? How about Team Fortress 2? The player is assuming the role of a soldier with weapons and they go about controlling their avatar to play the game. This goes for any FPS. Yes, there are RPG-FPS hybrids such as Duex Ex, the entire Theif series, Half-Life single player modes, but what prevents the multiplayer from being considered an RPG as well? Certainly not the definition of Role Playing Games. I could go into the exact same argument with RTS games where the player is assuming the role of a military commander and managing tens if not hundreds of individual unit avatars.
To stretch this line of thought further, I was playing Poker Blitz on Facebook. Normally such a game is not an RPG by virtue of the fact that it is the player who is playing the game directly. The player is not assuming any sort of "role". However, one of the first things that happens in the game is that the player creates an avatar to represent himself in the virtual environment. So now, the player controls an avatar. Does this minor cosmetic change make an RPG? Pretty silly huh?
Now lets drop out of the video game world and hop into pen/paper and boardgames. The traditional RPG revolves around pencil/paper, rulebooks, and dice. How about a boardgames? Players usually control characters around the board, so does that mean all boardgames are thus RPGs as well? I can see an argument made for Clue, but as we descend down to games like Scrabble it becomes more of a stretch.
If we look at all of these examples, the moment there is a "character" or "avatar" involved in the game, we're dealing with elements of an RPG. In this sense, the term RPG is far too broad. How do we determine whether a game is an RPG? Clearly, no one views most of the generic FPS games to be RPGs, nor do they think that of RTSs or boardgames.
Back to the top then, the JRPG. Why do we consider such games to be RPGs. Because they contain iconic references to RPG terminology such as Hit Points and Experience Points? Seems rather silly again. Hit point is another work for Health or Stamina or "something that will cause you to lose the game if you don't have some". Experience points are merely a measure of progression. The typical Zelda game never had EXP, instead money, and gaining better items was the form of progression.
I suppose the better question is: what do I expect out of an RPG? Why do I play them? I play them because they give me freedom to create the character I wish, and make the decisions I want.
JRPGs do not give me these liberties. Most CRPGs (computer RPGs) don't either. That is the nature of dealing with videogames though. They lack the imagination of the human mind. However, it is the human mind that pre-programs these games. Variety is possible and enough variety grants the illusion of freedom. So if JRPGs do not have these qualities, what CRPGs do?
Most of the classics actually. The Baldur's Gate trilogy certainly does. As with any videogames, I do not have total freedom, but there are distinct choices I have in character creation which alters playstyle and decision making when it comes to party member selection. In character interaction as well, I have a dialog menu rife with choices. Not always the exact response I would give, but often there is one close enough to satisfy me. Lastly, the storyline is flexible. There's actually a randomized manner in which side quests appear, and it is also dependent on party members present, which generates a unique sequence of events every play through. The manner in which one replies to specific NPCs will change the flow of the story as well.
In stark contrast, the JRPG formula locks the player into a pre-conceived character with personality and statistics already laid out. Sure, there might be some options when it comes to advancing statistics or choice of equipment, however, the progression of the game leaves little to ones imagination. Perhaps this is why I enjoyed FF 5 and FF:Tactics more than the rest of the games. The class system allowed the player to customize the characters to their hearts content. Moreover, the storyline for the game is locked. There is one ending, possibly with minor variations (hello FF6, did you wait for Shadow? Recruit Umaro and Gogo?), but the story doesn't change. Perhaps this is why Chrono Trigger and Ogre Battle stood out in my mind as superior specimens in the atrocity that is your standard JRPG. Actions have consequences. These are two examples that rose above the standard JRPG.
In conclusion, we can see that not all JRPGs are bad. It's not even that they have bells and whistles that mask the bad. In fact, some have the 'good' qualities of RPG gameplay that we look for. However, the basic JRPG model is a shame to the term Role Playing Game. The basic model is devoid of any player effort beyond power-leveling and thus would probably be more enjoyable as a movie.
RPGs should strive to grant freedom and choice. This is perhaps why Bioware RPGs sell so well. All of the Neverwinter Nights games, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, ect. They all contain freedom of character choice. The player is not stuck with an annoying main character that they cannot get rid of. Nor are players stuck with characters that do not fit their playstyle. Varied storyline that combines a bit of randomness and player control over how the story develops. It's times like this when I compare the new Bioware games to their contemporary RPGs and wonder if I'm just being nostalgic in thinking how awesome Baldur's Gate was. Maybe Bioware should release a Baldur's Gate remake with an updated game/graphics engine. Then we could see how well it compares to today's RPGs.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
StarCraft 2 Beta...what balance means
Normally, gaming forums require that one wade through hundreds of uneducated posts before coming across useful information. I do it anyways because every once in awhile, I find little gems of wisdom and insight that are truly remarkable.
Today's little tid-bit comes from a poster called Bibdy.bobdyboo:
Did you see that. I like this definition of balance much better than my previous one (I had said Balanced Enough is when the game is decided by player skill rather than choice of faction), and this is the model I believe has lead Blizzard to success with the first StarCraft. Variety of strategy is key. Most forum posters complain about individual units being overpowered. Sure we could analyze why that unit is too strong for it's cost and tech level, but there are more dynamics to strategy than just mass producing a single unit (even zerg will fail if they attempt to mass only one thing). "See the forest not the trees" is an analogy that my mom liked to say. There's a bigger picture out there, and the multitude of dynamics involved in strategy games is what makes looking at individual unit stats less than useful.
Trends and following the Emergence of new strategies is what needs to happen. With such a large beta tester base, we can view these things and observe and tweak until things are "balanced enough". After all, the game would be awfully boring if counters were written in stone for you, or if the units were all equal.
If we can observe that all factions have a variety of strategy that involves a multitude of units being used at high levels of gameplay then we can infer that the game is balanced. If a unit is over-utilized, then we can infer that said unit could be overpowered. Certain units are meant to be more versatile than others. For example Marines, Stalkers, and Hydralisks. As units that can strike both air and ground, you can be certain that most mid and late game strategies will involve them or be prepared to deal with them. Does this make them overpowered? No probably not. It makes them useful. These units are designed to be "all around" units, so that they easily fit themselves into various strategies is not surprising. There is a limit though. If the strategy is such that these "backbone" units become the only unit used in the strategy, then there's obviously an imbalance if they're defeating units that are meant to destroy them.
But if we see a specialized unit...say the Dark Templar being utilized with great frequency, then we start worrying. A clear harassment and tricky unit, a DT should not be something that a player relies exclusively on. A few to harass workers or pick off buildings, or mix a few in with your ground army to make your army more offensive than it seems at first glance. Either strategy still requires other things to compose the bulk of your army with specialized units as "assistance".
Units have roles, if they exceed their roles, then perhaps they're imbalanced, but noting if something exceeded is dependent on strategies as a whole...not specific unit stats. Ultimately the change in balance will be derived at the unit level, but it will be made in response to strategic situations and variety.
Today's little tid-bit comes from a poster called Bibdy.bobdyboo:
| Pretty much all of the balance changes have been made to encourage unit diversity. People always look at patch note changes and assume that changes were made to find that perfect balance point. They're really not. Roaches were nerfed because they were too prominent in ZvZ. Hydras were nerfed again because people simply used them too much (and still do) to counter almost everything. Marauders had Conc Shell put on an upgrade, because it screwed up the early-game PvT dynamic, where super-fast Marauders were hammering on Protoss bases at the start of matches and Protoss couldn't counter them for like 2 minutes. Marines and Reactors had their build times increased in response to very commonly used quick Marine/SCV charges in PvT strats (in Korea mostly). SCVs had their health reduced to combat the same problem. The Dark Shrine had its cost and build time increased in reaction to that, since DTs could now 1-shot SCVs and be much stronger against Terrans (this was one of those rare, pre-emptive nerfs). Blizzard are only going to be happy when they land balance at the exact point you're talking about. When there's massive unit diversity, tons of crazy strats, tons of crazy counter-strats AND a 50% win rate for everybody. That is never going to happen so long as people keep sitting on the boards screaming that X or Y is overpowered. It'll happen when you play a *%@*load of games, give them lots of data to work with and they make gradual tweaks here and there to encourage different unit usage and just see what people come up with. For instance, now that Immortals come out later, are Roach-rushes going to be overpowered against Protoss? The only one's who know for sure, are Blizzard. If its a problem, they'll fix it in some manner. Another Roach nerf isn't going to be because they thing Roaches are "10% too powerful!". It'll be because there's some strat that's very common, strong and barely counterable. |
Did you see that. I like this definition of balance much better than my previous one (I had said Balanced Enough is when the game is decided by player skill rather than choice of faction), and this is the model I believe has lead Blizzard to success with the first StarCraft. Variety of strategy is key. Most forum posters complain about individual units being overpowered. Sure we could analyze why that unit is too strong for it's cost and tech level, but there are more dynamics to strategy than just mass producing a single unit (even zerg will fail if they attempt to mass only one thing). "See the forest not the trees" is an analogy that my mom liked to say. There's a bigger picture out there, and the multitude of dynamics involved in strategy games is what makes looking at individual unit stats less than useful.
Trends and following the Emergence of new strategies is what needs to happen. With such a large beta tester base, we can view these things and observe and tweak until things are "balanced enough". After all, the game would be awfully boring if counters were written in stone for you, or if the units were all equal.
If we can observe that all factions have a variety of strategy that involves a multitude of units being used at high levels of gameplay then we can infer that the game is balanced. If a unit is over-utilized, then we can infer that said unit could be overpowered. Certain units are meant to be more versatile than others. For example Marines, Stalkers, and Hydralisks. As units that can strike both air and ground, you can be certain that most mid and late game strategies will involve them or be prepared to deal with them. Does this make them overpowered? No probably not. It makes them useful. These units are designed to be "all around" units, so that they easily fit themselves into various strategies is not surprising. There is a limit though. If the strategy is such that these "backbone" units become the only unit used in the strategy, then there's obviously an imbalance if they're defeating units that are meant to destroy them.
But if we see a specialized unit...say the Dark Templar being utilized with great frequency, then we start worrying. A clear harassment and tricky unit, a DT should not be something that a player relies exclusively on. A few to harass workers or pick off buildings, or mix a few in with your ground army to make your army more offensive than it seems at first glance. Either strategy still requires other things to compose the bulk of your army with specialized units as "assistance".
Units have roles, if they exceed their roles, then perhaps they're imbalanced, but noting if something exceeded is dependent on strategies as a whole...not specific unit stats. Ultimately the change in balance will be derived at the unit level, but it will be made in response to strategic situations and variety.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Level Scaling
I got into a conversation regarding "level scaling" in computer games. Poster child games that suffer from level scaling problems are The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, and recent Bioware games. What's so bad about level scaling? It destroys progression.
Does it matter if I do 10 damage against a 100 HP enemy or 100 damage against a 1000 HP enemy? No not really, the ratio is the same, and if my opponents simply scale up when my character increases in power, then what's the point of increasing in power? The game's mechanical progression become moot and turns into effectively wasted effort on the programming side.
It's a different thing if the game's progression is designed such that you should reach a certain power level by the time you face more difficult challenges. That is game progression. But to artificially adjust challenges directly based off of player power level defeats the purpose of game progression.
On the illusion level, I suppose it does have the merit of allowing players to see larger numbers show up for damage (even if the effort remains the same). Similar to the differentiation between a true random number generator and a pseudo random number generator. However, the strength of the illusion with a RNG serves a purpose in providing a level of unpredictability, whereas level scaling merely makes the game static.
In short, don't level scale. It's the lazy (boring) way to design "challenging" encounters.
Does it matter if I do 10 damage against a 100 HP enemy or 100 damage against a 1000 HP enemy? No not really, the ratio is the same, and if my opponents simply scale up when my character increases in power, then what's the point of increasing in power? The game's mechanical progression become moot and turns into effectively wasted effort on the programming side.
It's a different thing if the game's progression is designed such that you should reach a certain power level by the time you face more difficult challenges. That is game progression. But to artificially adjust challenges directly based off of player power level defeats the purpose of game progression.
On the illusion level, I suppose it does have the merit of allowing players to see larger numbers show up for damage (even if the effort remains the same). Similar to the differentiation between a true random number generator and a pseudo random number generator. However, the strength of the illusion with a RNG serves a purpose in providing a level of unpredictability, whereas level scaling merely makes the game static.
In short, don't level scale. It's the lazy (boring) way to design "challenging" encounters.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Rules are Fundamental
So, if you read the first post, you were probably wonder what "Half-Real" is. It's not a game, it's a book. It's a book on computer games specifically, and Mr. Juuls goes into great detail about the theory behind games, much of which I agree with. I was introduced to this book as a required text of my Intro to Game Programming class.
His book directly ties into what I feel games are, and what irritates me frequently about some game designers and players I see. Juuls quotes several predecessors who tried to define games. While all of them differed as to exact definitions, one of they key things that stands out is "Rules". Every game has rules. Rules are what differentiates playing games, from playing with toys.
Never again do I want to hear a gamer or game designer say that the game rules are unimportant. That is crap. If a person feels that rules are unimportant, then that person doesn't like gaming. Players don't have to like the rules laid out. They don't have to know them inside and out like someone from the WotC Char Op boards, but they do have to realize that game rules exist to serve a fundamental purpose in facilitating the entertaining derived from a game.
Yes, deriving the qualitative entity known as "fun" from gaming is the true purpose, and yes rules should not get in the way of "fun". However, even if the rules do limit the "fun" factor, that does not diminish their importance.
Aside from establishing that all games have rules, Juuls also explains how rules can affect gameplay, but he gets distracted by the term "gameplay" and ceases to talk much about rules. So here's my stab at it:
In PvE, rules are used to limit the player such that the environment provides a challenge.
In PvP, rules are used to restrict or eliminate "unfun" behavior such that players can provide appropriate challenges for one another. And while valorization of the winner is still included, the loser is not discouraged from further attempts.
A bit of a mouthful I suppose. Definitely less concise than I would like, but it seems to fit the bill. The big problem, and the problem I want to address in context of this blog is when we have PvPvE environments such as WoW or LARPs that allow for PvP. The difficulty lies in that game designers create a diffrentiation between PvP and PvE. Namely that in PvE, the Environment does not have "feelings of valorization", thus it's ok for the player to cut through swaths of unnamed enemies without breaking a sweat. While in PvP were a single player capable of cutting through a swath of human opponents, there would be cries of foul play or at least commentary on skill level.
Well, that's enough philosophy for now. The next post will start dealing with actual games and their balance issue.
His book directly ties into what I feel games are, and what irritates me frequently about some game designers and players I see. Juuls quotes several predecessors who tried to define games. While all of them differed as to exact definitions, one of they key things that stands out is "Rules". Every game has rules. Rules are what differentiates playing games, from playing with toys.
Never again do I want to hear a gamer or game designer say that the game rules are unimportant. That is crap. If a person feels that rules are unimportant, then that person doesn't like gaming. Players don't have to like the rules laid out. They don't have to know them inside and out like someone from the WotC Char Op boards, but they do have to realize that game rules exist to serve a fundamental purpose in facilitating the entertaining derived from a game.
Yes, deriving the qualitative entity known as "fun" from gaming is the true purpose, and yes rules should not get in the way of "fun". However, even if the rules do limit the "fun" factor, that does not diminish their importance.
Aside from establishing that all games have rules, Juuls also explains how rules can affect gameplay, but he gets distracted by the term "gameplay" and ceases to talk much about rules. So here's my stab at it:
In PvE, rules are used to limit the player such that the environment provides a challenge.
In PvP, rules are used to restrict or eliminate "unfun" behavior such that players can provide appropriate challenges for one another. And while valorization of the winner is still included, the loser is not discouraged from further attempts.
A bit of a mouthful I suppose. Definitely less concise than I would like, but it seems to fit the bill. The big problem, and the problem I want to address in context of this blog is when we have PvPvE environments such as WoW or LARPs that allow for PvP. The difficulty lies in that game designers create a diffrentiation between PvP and PvE. Namely that in PvE, the Environment does not have "feelings of valorization", thus it's ok for the player to cut through swaths of unnamed enemies without breaking a sweat. While in PvP were a single player capable of cutting through a swath of human opponents, there would be cries of foul play or at least commentary on skill level.
Well, that's enough philosophy for now. The next post will start dealing with actual games and their balance issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)