|
I have heard that you in the past did a scenario wherein the combat wasn't so much important as the way you were comporting yourself.
RG: Yes. Ultima IV... Here's the challenge and reward of doing that. What's interesting about Ultima IV is it was very different than any other game I'd made previously, although I've tried to incorporate many elements of that in future games.
When I was writing it, I wasn't sure anybody would get it. When I would explain it to friends and family, they absolutely did not get it, and yet it was the first number one best-selling Ultima I ever did by far. It's really what put Ultima on the map.
What's interesting about it is when you create a game around combat, it's pretty easy to go, "You know, you have weapons that go from wimpy to tough. You got armor that goes from wimpy to tough. You got creatures that go from wimpy to tough. And my skill and experience is going to go from wimpy to tough." So, it's just this feathering of constantly increasing challenge and reward. It's a system you can put aside and say, "We're done."
When you think of the movie Star Wars, what's interesting about it is it's not the same battle over and over again, just a little tougher. There's actually a story arc. Each challenge is unique compared to the previous challenge.
Well, that means, in a gaming sense, you need to code it uniquely in many ways. It's not a system anymore. Or if it there's any systematic-ness to it, it's a lot more elements and a lot more moving parts. It's a lot harder to balance than just everything gets tougher.
So, what I did with Ultima IV is I actually created a game where the game told you, in words, that it was going to be monitoring your behavior. But when you did deeds good, bad, or otherwise, there was no point system that you were aware of that was going up or down. And so you could never be sure when you were being tested and when you weren't.
And some tests would be easy for me to do. Like if you stole money from a shop, that's pretty easy for me to test, so I'm going to record it. I'm not going to tell you. I'm not going to stop you. I'm not going to tell you, but I am going to record it. It wasn't really easy to lie to somebody and really test it very well, you know what I mean? Even if I set up one case in the whole game where you could, I couldn't make a system out of it.
But again, I at least made you think it so you'd be worried about it. So, I the entire overarching part of the game was to create this sense of, "Hey, I'm responsible for my own actions in this game, and some of them, an unknown fraction of it, is going to reflect on how the world reacts to me." If you cheated that NPC, later on, you were going to back and need something from that NPC, and he'd say, "I'd like to help you, but you're the most dishonest thieving scumbag I've ever met, so no way."
Here's where the Ultima IV epiphany happened for me. My previous games -- Akalabeth, Ultima I, Ultima II, and Ultima III -- I published all but Ultima III through other publishers. Ultima III was Origin's first game, my company's first game.
That was the first time I got letters, what you might call fan mail, from people. And fan mail in our industry is one paragraph of, "Hey, I really like your game," and usually pages of "Here's what you did wrong," or, "Let me tell you how to make your next game."
But what became clear when I would read that mail is how people were interpreting my games in a very different way than I had made them, or they were interpreting things into it that just weren't there. They were just reading things into the game.
I was like, "Wow, it's fascinating how much people are reading between the lines. It's just not there." And also, I was going like, "Okay, the storyline for Ultima I: go kill Mondain the wizard, who sits in his castle and waits for you to come kill him, and you go loot corpses on the way to get there and probably take advantage of villagers on the way. Ultima II: Go kill Minax the enchantress, his lover, and on they go. Pillage and plunder. Ultima III: Go kill Exodus, their offspring, and pillage and plunder on the way."
And I'm going like, "God, I'm so tired of telling this story."
And, by the way, that's still the same story almost every game still has to this day. And I'm going like, "Okay, there's got to be more to life than writing the go kill the evil wizard story." And combine that with the fact that people were reading so much into my games that was just never there, and they were playing by pillaging and plundering a lot more than I thought they were.
And so I'm going, "Okay. I'm going to make a game where the world..." I really had no moral message I was trying to tell. What I was trying to do was craft a world where the world responded to you in the same way the real world responds to you. If you behave like a jerk, no one's going to like you and no one's going to help you, and you're not going to be successful. And thus laid the groundwork for Ultima IV.
|
Good morning, Remo. :)
So true, but I wonder how that compares to, say, aspiring movie director & producers? On the one hand they do the same thing to an extent. On the other, many are research-oriented and those are usually the ones that make the biggest contributions because they draw from outside the industry.
'And so designers have no job qualifications really, if you know what I mean. And so everybody wants to be one and nobody's skilled at it. '
I'm not sure about this. I think this is a conflation of production skill with game design skill. It seems to be me core game design skill is just that - the art of designing core activities for players to do, which are fun/interesting/compelling. And then being able to communicate these activity-sets to the team in a way that they work with existing art and technology. It's a soft, nearly intangible skill. But just because it's soft and intangible doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
The state of Facebook games is such that they're indirectly interactive. I do nice things for you, you do nice things for me, but even if we're both interacting with the same Farm at the same time, we don't see each other and can't talk.
Closing the gap, giving people things to do together, and still keeping the game casual, now that would be a design challenge.
It is nice to hear someone like Garriott affirming the importance of research. Now I feel my tendancy to obsess about fully knowing something I wish to design around has more weight than my own conjecture.
John, isnt it even more of a design challenge to come up with gameplay thats fun for friends *despite* having only asynchronous communication?
Theres nothing wrong with designing games around friends interacting in real-time. Im just not sure that capability is right for the architecture of social networks like Facebook.
It seems to me that if social nets like FB are to become the Next Big Thing in gaming as Richard Garriott predicts, its the very asynchronous nature of friends casually communicating with each other -- as distinct from single-player or massively-multiplayer architectures -- that will enable this result. So thats probably where design creativity needs to be directed.
Speaking of which, its nice to hear an Industry Figure sticking up for designers as people who have a unique gift of understanding how systems fit together to achieve an overall purpose.
IMO (and since my opinion is free, take it for what it's worth) is as follows.
VGA Planets. Trade Wars.
In comtemplating Facebook games, we also step back in time to the days of dialup services and BBSes. Gaming occurred in these enviornments (VGA Planets being one of the most notable) and ought to have some wisdom for us to take forward into Facebook.
I don't want to excessively downplay the challenges of developing asynchronous multiplayer games for Facebook. The challenges ARE there. If nothing else the potential scale of the world is many orders of magnitude larger than any BBS game. How do you keep an asynchronous story straight when you and a friend happen to be playing at the same time? Farmville doesn't have the sort of story progression that can be thrown off by multiple players stirring the pot at once.
It's just not totally unexplored territory.
That Facebook presents such a limited platform for synchronous activity is *why* such content is the greater challenge in my mind. Clearly any Facebook game that accomodated synchonous multiplayer play would also have to handle the asycnhronous case. Keeping the two modes straight and complemntary in a story-format is also a challenge.
Me, I gave up on FarmVille and I am just about ready to jump Café World (friends who want to play with me be damned). Why? Zynga, as much as I like these guys, are FLOODING you with spam. The first Minute of FarmVille these days is clicking away pop-ups. If you're not careful, you click on more ads in the playing field. And Café World is nearly there, too.
I do understand and respect that they need to maintain a business and micro transactions is what they live from. However, all it has done for me so far was drive me away from their games.
Once you introduce sync games, casual play becomes more difficult to maintain. In particular, if we look at the MMO model, players become dependent on other players to get some content done and they need to invest a lot of time in the game as well.
Is there a middle ground? There sure is! I have a lot of ideas and some include sync play.
@Andrew. I think there is going to be a lot of competition in this space and that will/should cause companies to back off on the amount of spam.
@Bob. The game/entertainment industry is evolving as it always has. So, imo its not a fad, simply another step in evolution. Keep in mind the majority of folks playing these social games would never bother with a PC or console game, so there is no 'everyone to get back to regular games'. This is why this space is pulling is so much crazy money, its expanded the player base dramatically.
I don't think I'm the only one who know at least a couple hundred people playing these games that either use their work PC to play or have a PC at home that could not handle a game created within the past 3 years.
@John Trauger "could be so good at design that he doesn't need to play Farmville to figure it out. "
With that approach you are missing 90% of features that make a game social: virality & retention & events that you couldn't "figure out" unless you'll play it.
@Gesine You'll come back to the game as soon as it will provide enough of new content and meta-game layers. Or you'll see new beautiful pics in news feed :)
What I would say to you is this: What things have you done outside of the game industry? What outside world experience can you bring that will let you make something meaningful and interesting?
The article sez RG has been playing a lot of phone games. He may be assuming that Facebook games are similar. Now I don't play games on my phone, but it strikes me that phone games are more like games from the pre-internet days of desktop computer games. I don't know (or not know) that phone games play to the social/viral aspects of Facebook that Farmville does. Based on some fo RG's comments, he's thinking of essentially moving casual internet gaming portals to a facebook app.
If true --and it may or may not be, my telepathy is down today--RG would be missing what makes Facebook unique and sometimes annoying (Farmville does indeed want to put a whole lot of sheer carp on your wall if you let it. I only publicized opportunities for myself or other players like lost animals barn-raisings or when I levelled to a number divisble by 5).
I'm about due to check in with Farmville and see if the server has erased my farm yet. I'm about 3 months clean and sober, now. :)
I don't "play" Farmville myself but I have in the past.
That said, if he hasn't studied it and doesn't have intentions to it is in direct violation of his own statement of how essential extensive research is.
But from a guy who did Ultima 4 in early eighties, one of the first real moral games at least (what makes Bioshock and Mass Effect decisions system a kid's play) and foresee in Ultima 7 a living world that would take place in the pioneering Ultima Online, i can really expect from him something more than Farmville's watching and copying from the others.
Being a failure or a sucess, he doesn't have to knock on the door to ask for permissions.