Column #99: "At Every Level, In Every Way"

[DanQ]

Johan Palme has garnered this week's Column with his article entited "At Every Level, In Every Way".

Palme laments how creators still crave a half decent modification editor, and issues a challenge to gaming companies to take him up on it.

Comments/questions welcomed.

----------------
Dan; Apolyton CS

[Graag]

I totally agree with this column. Having started making a 'Dune'scenario shortly after I got civ2 I was frusterated by the clumsyness of the editors and scenario creating system. I liked how customisable civ2 was, but there is room for a lot more.

Graag

------------------
You should never smoke in pyjamas, you could start a fire and burn your face

[Ming]

Civ has been a very successful game because of it's ability to be customized. And as he points out, it could have been done far better.

One can only hope that all game designers are exposed to thoughts like this. Just think how good Civ III could be

[Hugo Rune]

Hi! Let me introduce myself to those of you who don't frequent the Off-Topic forum. My name is Johan Palme, a.k.a. Hugo Rune, and I wrote this column. I am the person who will (hopefully) defend my views agains those who want to critisize them.

I would be happy to see as much feedback as possible, so that we might get those pesky game designers to actually start implementing some of this stuff!

[DaveV]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate here. You're talking about a huge investment of programmer time. If I, as a software designer, propose to spend massive resources to create some facet of my game, my backers will want to see some return on that investment. They will want examples of previous games whose success can be traced their ability to be customized, or marketing studies showing that adding a killer customization interface will increase sales enough to pay for itself. The guys who are writing the games always want to put in lots of cool stuff, but someone has to make sure that the game is shipped on time and in budget, or that company won't be producing many more games. Spending a lot of resources on something with marginal mass-market appeal just won't fly.

[Hugo Rune]

I would like anyone who hasn't played a single scenario for Civ2 to post here right now. I bet the list won't be long...

Certainly customisation has mass-market appeal, directly or indirectly. Ask yourself how many people bought Civ2:FW or CiC compared to the number who bought SMAC-X... I know I've personally bought several games for the sole fact that they are customisable. I usually don't like FPS games, yet I bought Duke Nukem 3D. I usually dislike simplistic driving games, yet I bought MM2. I also bought an obscure Sierra game called Off-Road Racing solely on the strength of the track editor! I will certainly buy WC3 because I read so much about the mission designer.

Anyone who's into customisation will know how immensely it extends the lifetime of a game. Isn't building up a core of Hard-Core fans one of the main aims of a games publisher? Customisation will do that.

And if there is no interest in customisation, why has it been included in past games?

[DaveV]

Hugo Rune - some of your arguments argue against a super customization interface, not for it. Consider it from the gaming company's point of view: their goal is to maximize their income versus their expenses (i.e. programmer time). Microprose released Civ2 with a decent, but not terribly user-friendly, user interface. Then they made more money by selling upgrades that gave slightly more customization options. If they had waited to release FW, and not bothered with Civ2 and CiC, would it have increased or decreased their total sales?

To look at it in the most cynical way, you already have the hard-core fans' money. Maybe their scenarios will help sell future copies, but do the hard-core fans really need a simple, user-friendly interface? They'll figure out how to squeeze the most from whatever you give them. As you say, there are plenty of scenarios produced for Civ2 and its successors. The guy who plays a scenario doesn't care how hard it was to create.

I'm not arguing against customization, just saying that I can't see any company investing in it to the level you propose.

[Hugo Rune]

Civfan: Read the rest of the thread. It might be an interesting read... The Blizzard game is WarCraft 3.

[Graag]

I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, Hugo Rune, on having such a damn good handle. I have been known from time to time on long forgotten message boards and chat services as Hugo Rune also, and for general handles-taken-from-something-cool-but-not-too-well-known, Hugo Rune has to be the best.

Graag

------------------
You should never smoke in pyjamas, you could start a fire and burn your face

[Hugo Rune]

I actually started off as Cornelius Murphy but everyone kept laughing at me, so I had to change...

Anyway, I found a bit more info on the editor in WC3:

From the GameFan preview:

"WarCraft III uses a Java-script language, which allows users to code their own modifications or total conversions. The models are exported in simple text files (let’s face it, not everyone has access to 3DS Studio Max), and the skins in .tga and .pcx format. Users are encouraged to make their own hero skins and models, and with the simple Java script, it’s conceivable that players could program their own units, buildings, magic items or just about anything else. WarCraft III ships with a free 3-D map editor, as well--and knowing Blizzard, they’ll be releasing plenty of free levels, mods and units expanding the game far beyond its original scope."

And from the Blizzard Homepage:

"Our goal is to provide players with not just a campaign editor, but a full set of world design tools. Going far beyond the campaign editor we offered with Starcraft, we will offer scripting tools that will allow players to create their own game, complete with new artwork, unit behavior and spells."

So, no big game company is making moves in that direction, eh?

[This message has been edited by Hugo Rune (edited February 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hugo Rune (edited February 10, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Hugo Rune (edited February 10, 2000).]

[Graag]

How dare anyone laugh at Cornelius Murphy?

But Hugo Rune is far cooler


Graag

------------------
You should never smoke in pyjamas, you could start a fire and burn your face

[Hugo Rune]

quote: I can't see any company investing in it to the level you propose.

Excerpt from the WarCraft 3 Preview at Gamespot:

"The scenario builder, which Blizzard has been refining since the days of Warcraft II, will now give users even more freedom and power to create worlds. Called the "advanced world builder" by Pardo, it will allow you to create new units, heroes, spells, and even scan in your own art. According to Pardo, every file format in the game will be nonproprietary. In addition, Blizzard will give users a full scripting language to use, similar to Java, although the trigger system seen in the Starcraft campaign editor will still be supported."

No, I'm not a blizzard poster boy. I didn't particularly like StarCraft at all. But wouldn't Civ3 benefit from something this ambitious? StarCraft had a fine editor, which was better than Civ2's but not as versatile, and had great documentation, a wonderful scripting language based on triggers, and a simple drag-and-drop interface. With the add-ons above the sky is really the limit.

[Civfan]

Just curious about the last statement. Only Blizzard seems up to the challenge? What game of that company are you refering to?

With the editor's an issue? I think companies use the editors as an add-on for there game. If the game is a success, some form of editor will be released to continue people's interest in that product. Civ2 is a great example. I never followed the scenario scene for Civ2 until I found Apolyton. Once I downloaded a scenario and read abit on how to change it, I was hooked on it. I modified it and the next day bought Civ2=TOT.

I agree with Johan Palme as software companies should focus abit more on the editor issuee. Grand Turismo and Grand Turismo 2 were both games which are heavly modifed by the customer. Friends and I would spend hours just adjusting horsepower and gear ratio to make the car perform faster. Most games are shelved except the three mentioned above. I wonder why? Once the software companies figure it out, we will have better editors in our games.

Civfan...

[St Leo]

I fail to make the connection between hardcore gamers and unit sales. Hardcore gamers find bugs, offer free tech support via web pages, and give feedback on sequels but they do not move boxes off the shelves like the word-of-mouth of average Janes. In that respect, gameplay and a really good box are much more important than scenario editors and a customizable engine.

------------------
St. Leo
http://ziggurat.sidgames.com/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[Scouse Gits]

St. Leo you are absolutely correct - if anything the fully customisable infinitely replayable game is exactly what the game publishers do not want. They make their money from unit sales, not replayability. I absolutely enjoyed playing games like Rama, Amerzone, Gabriel Knight etc., but once played they are dead - a publishers wet dream --- now lets think if I can get £30 for a play once game how much should I charge for a "play continuously for the next ten years" game? Hmmmmmm

However, I thoroughly enjoyed the article even if I cannot agree with it from any viewpoint other than a fanatical gamer.

------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor