|
I frequently have game-related things I want to post about here (and
writing-related things, and science fiction-related things, and...),
but rarely feel like I have the time to post thoughtfully, so this is
an experiment in writing something off the top of my head just as it
occurs to me.
The concept of "user-generated content" has been a
buzz-word for a good long while, and it can be perceived perhaps as
just that, or maybe it's something more significant, our inevitable yet
exciting slide toward Hamlet on the Holodeck
(and the "holodeck" is something that comes up often in any online
world discussion)... because of the convenience of the business buzz
term (UGC), we're now beginning to accept in a major way that as we
make advances into online space, one of the deepest drives that we have
as people is to create, to shape that space for ourselves and not
"merely" inhabit it.
But no one's managed to create a truly workable, accessible UCG-friendly area yet. Second Life isn't it. Metaplace isn't it (sorry Raph). Thus far, properties that have made UGC their core mission have not been successful.
Maybe it's technological limitations, the idea whose time is still not come. Maybe it's what Will Wright says about The Sims and Spore -- that people don't really want to create, they want the illusion of creating -- the illusion of the creative act in the same way Guitar Hero is the illusion and not the reality of musicality.
But
I think there's something else to it, and I also don't mean to diminish
the deep difficulty in creating a user-modifiable space with accessible
tools -- if it were easy, someone would have done it. The secret sauce
balance between UGC and sticky gameplay -- the core broad inspiration
that hooks a player and makes them feel compelled to create in this space -- hasn't yet been found, though perhaps The Sims has come closest.
Again,
though -- something else to it. I suspect that game developers are
uniquely inhibited in creating user-friendly user-generated-content...
generators. We're so used to forcing a system to do what we want no
matter the barrier that it becomes very difficult to squeeze our brains
into the experience of, perhaps, the one thing we can't envision -- a
person who doesn't have that immediate burning desire to bend a
completely unreasonable tool to their will. And so we wind up creating
only slightly less unreasonable tools rather than tools that are
actually inviting and intuitive.
This is actually something that
I love about designing games for kids. Kids will not give you a single
inch. If you do something stupid, you don't get away with it -- they
don't stick around to see if you fix yourself. They tell you that
you're being stupid and they walk away. This applies in fundamental
game design, in UI design, in art and in concept -- in every dimension.
It is a phenomenally educational experience for a designer, to make
something for a kid you don't know, who has no reason to cut you any
slack.
And it's also why we can learn from the web, why we need
to reach out to marketing-minded folk and usability experts, because
product marketing has learned an awful lot about how to track user
behavior and dropoff rates, and what stems the tide. It has been
abundantly clear for some time now that the future of online games is
not in trapping a consumer through flashy advertising into traveling to
a store and buying an expensive box -- it's in online lowest-barrier
access.
And that means we don't have them shackled into stubbornly
enjoying our product the way we do if they've already purchased a
retail box -- we have thirty seconds to five minutes (in the
excessively patient) to differentiate ourselves significantly enough
from our competition to keep them clicking. They need a reason
in the first gut-check five seconds. Our hooks need to be better. Our
content needs to be better. We need to stop thinking we can be sadistic
and get away with it, that we can make the game entry process some sort
of esoteric and bizarre hazing rather than a welcoming overture that
compels and inspires.
So that's your fast post. Have a great weekend, all!
|
I guess it comes down to what people really want out of User Generated Content. If they want to simply add things to an existing game, I really don't see why something like Spore doesn't fit the bill. If people want more flexibility than that, and they want the freedom to start creating whatever they want, then they should go off and look into modding more seriously. Game Development isn't for everyone, and we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that through the push of some magic button, your every day game player is going to be able to create something that took a professional game developer a long time to do.
My main issue with this post was the third and fourth paragraphs, about wanting to classify User Generated Content tools as being accessible. If Games Development itself is still a very complex task, why should we believe that allowing users to have the same freedom is any easier? We'll get the ultimate User Generated Content tools as soon as they become the toolset that professional game developers are using. The closest thing to that right now is engines like Unity, Unreal, etc.
I'm also not arguing that Spore doesn't fit the bill -- my intended point above was that games like Spore and The Sims come closest to generating substantial effective UGC out of all games that have so far attempted it, mostly because they did put a lot of energy into making it accessible to players.
I also said that generating the tools for UGC is by no means easy. Both Spore and The Sims put large amounts of effort into it -- which is kind of odd when you consider that other environments like Second Life, whose entire premise is on UGC, have not done the same.
I also think that it's a dodge to say that we'll have better UGC when the devs have better tools. In the first place I don't believe it's true, because tool development always lags behind advancing technology, so in order for it to catch up technology would have to stop advancing, which I don't believe it will (ever) do; and in the second I believe they're two completely different objectives. It is true that really solid UGC tools should also enhance the content development capability of the developer -- but especially in online games the role of the content developer is to do things that the tools can't do because of that advancing technology edge and their ability to reach directly into code.
The overall point is that undefined edge, or zone, between the "illusion" of creation -- guided creation that is really a more Sid Meier-esque navigation of a large array of choices -- and "true" creation itself, if there can be said to be such a thing.
There's something about crowdcomputing and evolutionary algorithyms, but I'll let it for other time :)
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JhypsyShah/20090425/1254/Player_Evolution.php
Tim, I follow your logic but disagree vehemently with this common concept that "most people are not very creative". I think what we see overwhelmingly is that a lot more people than we tend to acknowledge have a strong creative drive -- and a significant percentage of them do create things that other people want to experience even if those creators have no intention of becoming full time game designers themselves. The problem with lumping this into "most" is that it creates the implication that we shouldn't be catering to "true" creative expression because it's for a subset of the audience, which I think isn't the most potential-harnessing way to look at the phenomenon and the ecosystem that results from it.
In the years that we ran GoPets the thing that I found the most amazing was the amount of energy, creativity, and skill development a significant portion of our players would put into creating their lands. And this wasn't specific to GoPets -- you see it in Club Penguin and other online environments where you wouldn't expect it. I think that creativity is a fundamental drive, and the differentiator is patience, which in turn is motivation. When we're creating games in many cases we're unwittingly creating art toolsets that people are using to create new things we never would have anticipated, and in so doing to invest large portions of themselves in what we have created. I think there is something we can learn _from players_ in terms of what not to tolerate from our tools.
I agree with you completely, though, that the yin to UGC's yang is a rating system that allows players to also sift and organize the created works in a way that makes them easy to navigate. Similarly, there is a symbiotic relationship, or maybe just a balance, between making the tools accessible and then creating something with them that is sufficiently inspiring to players to make them _want_ to build in our space -- these three dimensions are all equally important.
User Generated Content's industry buzzword status to me is simply the logical progression of good ideas in free markets. So I'm not surprised to see it become somewhat diffused, with some kernel of truth lost (or at least now made fuzzy) in the process, and I understand your comments surrounding a general frustration at this loss. I think we can all agree, the point of UGC is the User, or more specifically, the user's ability to take part in shaping the game experience as it is presented to players, both on a micro and macro level, and share that shift in game experience with others. I will admit, the player himself shapes the gaming experience just by playing, but generating content allows the user to become involved in the presentation, if not the outright construction, of the game world and that's my distinction here.
The root element that UGC targets, when we talk in terms of need satisfaction, is Relatedness, or in terms outside Self Determination Theory and in natural language, it is relating to other users. From building your own levels in Load Runner to modding a TC with UT3, the point here is for the creator-user to share their creation of elements in the game world with other creators or players, with the end goal being somewhere in the neighborhood of building friendships and establishing identity among your gaming peers. The reason UGC, when done properly, is so great is because, at its core, this falls right in line with one of a handful of universal needs we share: to be a valued member of a community.
So the diffusion I see, is where we've shifted from rediscovering this Relatedness goal and the UGC method to achieve it as a creator-user, and where the UGC is now an expected standard feature in a large proportion of game releases, that come at the consumer at a frantic pace, but sometimes without the necessary support systems in place to facilitate actually relating to others in a way that is significant to the creator-user. Significance here, refers to everything from the potential variance in expression, to the breath of distribution, to the creator's attribution and, probably most importantly, the perceived value of the community to relate to; it's size, variety, persistence, depth of interaction, etc.
As I just alluded to, the first problem I see is the sheer pace at which games in general and UGC opportunities in particular stream at the consumer. We're now seeing the UGC phase as part of the single game's release cycle: ... community construction, marketing push to release, release, reviews, UGC flood, post-release marketing, community maintenance, patches, ... crickets ... Do you see time here to a) develop something worth sharing and b) use that shared content to build up some kind of relationship with peers? Now take into account that this game was not released alone and the next similar game has released prior to the 'post-release marketing' stage. To actually target the Relatedness need satisfaction goal, you need three things: something to talk about, people to talk to, and time. I think to the average potential creator-user, all these elements dwindle in the face of the sheer pace of similar game releases.
The second diffusion problem I see is a loss of focus on the user's agency to relate to others. While some game releases (and note that I have to include the entire 'release' of a game; with marketing, continued community support, etc.; not just the design, to do this topic justice) do a great job of supporting creator-users in their efforts to relate, plenty have simply tacked on UGC with about as much care as any other industry buzzword: little or none. Fantastic Contraption is one of the simplest examples I can give for the kind of obvious care and design given to support the user goal of sharing with others in a meaningful way. With the ability to publicly post solutions with comments and your name, and with the ability to link to or email your solutions to targeted individuals or groups, it is simply expected that the user will share their solutions with others. The game is easy to use, the mechanisms to share with others are equally ease to use, and most importantly, the resulting shared solution is simultaneously valuable as a hint or aid to solve the level, and as an expression of an individual creator-user; each solution is unique and the potential variance is quite wide. So, this example seems to demonstrate how both ease of use and potential significance of the creator-user's contribution makes a large difference in the value of UGC.
Now, my example that considers Fantastic Contraption solutions as UGC leads to that point from Will Wright that you note above, giving the users the illusion of creation. The solutions in Fantastic Contraption can be seen as something other than user-generated content of the game world. The solutions you give are not wholesale reconstructions of the objects and environment of the game world (unless you buy the editor version and share your own levels, of course). This could be seen as more of the illusion of creation in that respect. However, this illusion is carried on quite well due to the nature of the game: solutions are meant to be constructed, then simply 'run' autonomously; like winding, then watching a wind-up toy. Yet each construction behaves so differently, the major compelling element of the game experience is in watching the toy go. So, this illusion of creation is tied very closely to primary compelling elements of the experience and therefore the shared solution is more meaningful to the creator-user and to those with whom the solution is shared.
Despite the industry buzzword status of UGC, the primal value of this feature set seems to allude many a modern game release, wasting a lot of development effort and presenting a somewhat empty promise of value to the user, due to a number of factors of our current game industry climate and a diffusion of focus on the user's need to relate to others. I believe the illusion of creation can be valuable to consumers of a game release, turning them into creator-users, if the creation relates well to the primary compelling elements of the game experience, if the support systems are in place to allow the user to create, express and share with relative ease, if there is a community ready, willing and able to share with, and if there is enough available time and attention to devote to such an endeavor before the community turns its attention to another game release.
Line Rider:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcu8ZdJ2dQo
Little Big Planet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDSzCFfaayM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=805crJ0Jybw
Lemmings:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJTHdnhI024
N+:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfpgigGCMfc&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Boom Blox:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZV-N4pJL5s&feature=PlayList&p=CEC3A3DA8F8EFA87&p
laynext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=17
Super Mario World: Impossible Levels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnWot7bX-_c
I really could just keep going on, and on and on and on. But that's why I might need you to clarify on what falls under the purview of UGC. You're right that we do need to continue to strive to make it easier and easier to make these tools accessible for a mass market audience... but UGC seems to be alive and well in my book.
It may just be my opinion, but the people you're talking about (the folks who have a real creative drive but have no desire to be game designers) are already finding outlets for their creations.
Thoughts?
I agree completely that UGC is fundamentally social. I already used my yin-yang card, so I'll just say that the equally important balance to UGC is the presence of an audience. I want to connect with someone who a) I know appreciates what I'm doing (so they're a fellow player in a shared context), b) is impressed by what I can do -- without the audience, UGC is perhaps terminally halved in value.
I also agree completely that a lot of games/products are seizing onto the buzzword without thinking deeply about what the core drivers/purposes of it are. But then a lot of things in life in general are done this way. :) So I would separate your diffusion problem(s) carefully from what are really basic marketing/investor/development efforts to attempt to squeeze one's product into whatever trend is thought to catch attention in the moment.
Ultimately the additive power of UGC on a given property is its potential to give an already quality product long legs, which is why, I think, you see the pattern of develop-release-expand-UGC-decline. But I think the UGC weight is no different than the many other things that we balance in prioritizing features -- except, perhaps, that it can be a red herring for some products if what developers are responding to is the buzz and not the core vision of the product itself. Absolutely critical to UGC, which I think some UGC-oriented products have forgotten to provide, is that inspiration point -- which fundamentally means that you have to have a quality core product before you can even think about handing the tools over to players and expecting them to be excited about what can result. You have to show them the Rolls Royce first so that they have a dream to pursue if they're making a go-kart.
It's true that all of the games you list involve an element of UGC, and this ties into I think some of what Glenn is saying about the prioritization of that feature over others in a given product.
What you can do is look at each of those communities and see that in all of the ones you mention UGC is a backseat added feature rather than being central. I think that LBP of all of them makes the most effective use of UGC, though Line Rider is also very impressive this way... but what you're getting is a subset of an existing audience, usually a very small percentage, as opposed to according UGC genuine respect as its own driving purpose. I'm probably coming off too hard on these games, and I don't mean to -- they do just have different design pillars.
If it helps give better definition, I would say I myself am primarily concerned with UGC in online worlds (I would call them "persistent" but what I mean by "persistent" is a new and sometimes-called confusing redefinition of the previous online use of "persistent"), because the level of accessibility, freedom, and expression their UGC offers tends to exponentially magnify the experience in comparison to console-based games, even ones with online access points...
And I would also say that there's UGC from the perspective of giving a player an additional toy (which I would argue is what's taking place in LBP and Lemmings), and then there's UGC from the perspective of handing them a complete toolset through which they create something that is not just an expansion of a given game mechanic, but a genuinely new piece of art that the developer did not ever intend. I realize that this is a fuzzy distinction, but it's the only way I can think of to describe the difference between a game that wants to give a small percentage of dedicated followers "something to do" when they're done with box content, and a game that wants to attract artists and give them a new way to engage in artistic creation independent of fixed game mechanics.
You mention: "[...] because the level of accessibility, freedom, and expression their UGC offers tends to exponentially magnify the experience [...]".
Also: "[...] and then there's UGC from the perspective of handing them a complete toolset through which they create something that is not just an expansion of a given game mechanic, but a genuinely new piece of art that the developer did not ever intend."
My opinion pertains specifically to scripting languages and not game design in general, but I think this basic rule applies outside of scripting.
Scripting systems can be so incredibly flexible (which makes them popular, and makes programmers happy). However, I have worked on several games now that have leveraged scripting at differing levels of complexity. The first game exposed nearly every facet of the game in scripts. This was probably warranted for the particular game but the complexity made it so hours upon hours upon hours of programmer's time was spent in scripts and not code.
The other games I worked on decreased how much exposure there was in the scripts. As a result, a programmer never really had to touch them. These are the two extremities.
Surely, there must be some constraints on what we can allow a player to add themselves into the game. Otherwise, we are asking our audience to be game developers. In this respect, I feel Line Rider is a magnificent triumph. It creates a world and says "I'm not going to define your experience. Define it yourself - but here are the rules".
The more freedom we allow our audience in user generated content, the more - in my opinion - we alienate them. Yes, there is always going to be a subset of people that have the patience and motivation to use the tools to create their own experience (if we provided them a game with UGC front and center of the experience). I just believe those are the same subset of people we currently see creating their own experiences through our current available games/tools.
Time will probably tell on that one. We'll have to track each other down whenever said product is made and revisit this conversation ;)
I think you're (again?) hitting on the balancing point between providing deep quality content and providing deep tools to players, and that we're using different words to say the same thing. There is a balance between the two, because by necessity every bit of energy you're putting into the tools is going away from directly creating deeper (but less flexible) content, and vice versa.
But good tools and freedom shouldn't alienate the player. The subset you're talking about I would argue is the same subset that becomes attached to any IP -- it is a difference primarily in whether a given property fires something unique in a player that is in turn unique to them as a person. It's whether the art resonates.
My main beef and the thing I'm trying to think through is why then we make things so difficult for people who are reached on that level, when we do offer UGC tools. And I think it does come down to resource allocation, which is not a black and white generalizable problem.
I would also say that for players who do go deeply into user generated content -- some who have commented on this post cross-posted to my journal have brought up MUDs -- quite the opposite from being alienated, carve out something that reaches deeper into them than any other game does. In online game terms these people often then go on to create their own self-sustaining engines of play experience in a way that no other game format allows.
I think when you're talking about "alienating" you're talking about that perhaps necessary detraction of deep content in favor of the UGC tools, but I'm not sure.
When you explain the difference between using UGC as an expression of a particular game mechanic and using UGC to create a completely different piece of art that the developer never intended - I immediately latched onto that sentence. The immediate questions in my head were "Well, how would it behave?"
Would the user define this new piece of art's behavior? How? Or would there be a selection of behaviors to choose from? What exactly are you trying to accomplish by letting the user create their own art and add it to the game? Are they supposed to interact with it? Or just look at it?
I assumed (perhaps wrongly so) that the user would be defining the behavior of this new object themselves. In order to accomplish this, we need to have some ability for the user to express behavior through some form of simplified language (straight up scripting, or do what Warcraft III did and have a GUI editor that converts user options to script). The more options you give the user, the more overwhelming it becomes. This is what I meant by alienating the player.
If the player isn't meant to define the behavior of these objects, then what is the end purpose? No matter how far we explore the idea, constraints must exist. We can keep making the sandbox bigger... but what is the benefit? If the sandbox gets too big... are people going to know how to play in this new space we've created for them? Are they going to care?
Do these questions clarify where I was coming from earlier?