I was thinking about this today, while at work. Or rather, I was thinking about Dark Souls and thinking, would I have the opinion I have for this game if my mate hadn't made me play the game? And, in addition to that, given me some insight into it and some assistance.
I know that I wouldn't have enjoyed this game if I had no prior knowledge of it and just dived in. I would have got annoyed and probably put the game down pretty quickly. I honestly think I'd have never got past the "tutorial" - anyone who's played Dark Souls will know what part I'm referring to. I always go on about story and immersion and, on the surface at least, this isn't evident in Dark Souls.
Having been given a small insight into the game before getting into it gave me that little nudge so that I could figure out some big questions pretty quickly and meant I could get into the game. And now, having invested a lot of hours into it I think my mentality has been changed. My enjoyment for point and click adventures has grown since my exposure to Dark Souls, I think. It has been a defining game in my life and something of a epiphany - I now have a far greater appreciation for difficult challenges and seemingly impossible puzzles. I will certainly never look at computer games in the same way.
Going back to the title though, I think it's a difficult question. But I feel that developers have got softer and softer over the years; the vast majority of mainstream computer games now are like joy rides, you just hop on and once it's finished you hop off. Quick saves, life regeneration, waypoints and "heroic" player characters have taken the challenge out of games and I think it's been a deliberate move to make people feel good about themselves and make lots of sales.
If anyone reads this post I'd like them to think about what the most challenging game they ever played was and how old that game is? If I was to put Dark Souls to one side then I'd have to say it was Doom 2 - one of the greatest FPS ever - a game almost 20 years old.
Tuesday, 25 March 2014
Monday, 17 March 2014
Some thoughts on tabletop gaming - setup and deployment
Morning all,
I've been thinking a lot about table top gaming for a little while now - I think I mentioned that in a post a couple of months back?
I miss the tactile, physical nature of it. Seeing the models, moving formations of troops around, unleashing death upon my enemy from up close or far away, depending on what troops I have at my disposal.
Anyway, one of the thoughts I had recently was about setup and deployment, because I think this was a large reason behind the game becoming stale for me and my friends. By setup I'm referring to the terrain on the board and deployment is where the armies are first allowed to be positioned, obviously.
So, the classic table top game in our gaming group generally involved one side - usually the side with most firepower - setting up in a line of death, and the other - the side with better close combat - trying to deploy in such a way that they would take minimal damage before being able to engage the enemy. After years of this, we got bored of it and now it seems board games have taken over!
My thoughts started about how we always wanted to try and involve more story in our games, give them meaning. This was great in theory, but it really required a games master to be involved and the story HAS to mean something, otherwise it's just gloss over another round of tedious blood baths. Then my thoughts moved to how to make the actually game play fun, without a story to give it context.
What I would really like to try if/when I play some table top gaming is to make sure there are no defensible positions within any forces deployment zone. So when you set the board up you make it so each side can't see each other. In the middle of the table could be a village or a mountain or dense forest. Each army is then forced to move and find cover, find defensive positions and think how best to out-manoeuvre their opponent.
When putting terrain on the board, don't place things laterally, put hedgerows and walls at angles, so it covers from one direction, but not the other. Put a house right in the middle of an open area, so it doesn't turn into a killing field.
Basically, don't have the middle of the board as an open area the players fight across. Make the middle of the board an impassable obstacle the players have to fight around.
Playing attacker-defender sounds good in theory, but in my experience I can only see it working with a strong narrative. I'd like to try making the action dynamic and tricky by forcing the players to have to figure out where they need to go and how best to get there troops there without dying hideously.
I've been thinking a lot about table top gaming for a little while now - I think I mentioned that in a post a couple of months back?
I miss the tactile, physical nature of it. Seeing the models, moving formations of troops around, unleashing death upon my enemy from up close or far away, depending on what troops I have at my disposal.
Anyway, one of the thoughts I had recently was about setup and deployment, because I think this was a large reason behind the game becoming stale for me and my friends. By setup I'm referring to the terrain on the board and deployment is where the armies are first allowed to be positioned, obviously.
So, the classic table top game in our gaming group generally involved one side - usually the side with most firepower - setting up in a line of death, and the other - the side with better close combat - trying to deploy in such a way that they would take minimal damage before being able to engage the enemy. After years of this, we got bored of it and now it seems board games have taken over!
My thoughts started about how we always wanted to try and involve more story in our games, give them meaning. This was great in theory, but it really required a games master to be involved and the story HAS to mean something, otherwise it's just gloss over another round of tedious blood baths. Then my thoughts moved to how to make the actually game play fun, without a story to give it context.
What I would really like to try if/when I play some table top gaming is to make sure there are no defensible positions within any forces deployment zone. So when you set the board up you make it so each side can't see each other. In the middle of the table could be a village or a mountain or dense forest. Each army is then forced to move and find cover, find defensive positions and think how best to out-manoeuvre their opponent.
When putting terrain on the board, don't place things laterally, put hedgerows and walls at angles, so it covers from one direction, but not the other. Put a house right in the middle of an open area, so it doesn't turn into a killing field.
Basically, don't have the middle of the board as an open area the players fight across. Make the middle of the board an impassable obstacle the players have to fight around.
Playing attacker-defender sounds good in theory, but in my experience I can only see it working with a strong narrative. I'd like to try making the action dynamic and tricky by forcing the players to have to figure out where they need to go and how best to get there troops there without dying hideously.
-----------------------------------------
On another note, we never figured out how to make a good objective based game of 40k - it always ended up being a blood bath no matter how hard with tried. What I would like to try is having a steady flow of reinforcements. Try to make the game only end when the objectives are captured. It may result in some long games, but with a little thought I think they could be epic!
Sunday, 2 March 2014
Not much to write about at the moment, except a few things...
Hello!
I spend my life dreaming of playing and designing games. But my thoughts recently have been too erratic to put down in any cohesive way.
Recently I've been enjoying the delights of World of Tanks on xbox live. It's a thoroughly gripping and well designed game, which you can enjoy for free, but equally, if you want, can start pumping all your cash into the progress more quickly!
I feel the design of World of Tanks is very good though because I don't really feel any great need to pump money into it, at least, not for a good long time. It's only now that I've got some of the higher level tanks in my sights (to unlock) that investing a little money is starting to become more tempting. But I think this is a perfectly legit way to have designed the game. Forcing people to invest money to get any real depth out of a game from the get-go, when you've advertised it as free-to-play, is scandalous and becoming all too common - particularly in the mobile gaming market. Making an investing feel more and more appealing as people invest more and more time in the game feels a very sensible and honest approach.
Xbox live recently reduced Dante's Inferno to a few quid, so I invested. I've mentioned it in the distant past on this blog, but just to quickly go over it again, this is a God of War style hack'n'slash but set in the awesome setting of hell. As a single player experience, for a few quid, this game is an absolute must for those who like good story, engrossing game play, a stunningly evocative setting and harrowing sound track. Can't wait to give a little time to this one again.
I've not played Dark Souls since I downloaded World of Tanks. But it sits there, whispering in my ear, tempting me to dare crack it. To be honest I'm glad of the break from it. It'll make it that much more pleasurable when I decide to go back.
-------------------------------
In boardgaming news, my mates and I finished a whole campaign of Descent! Was a little bit of an anti-climax at the end, but we enjoyed it and look forward to playing again and even trying a different campaign. There are a few aspects to the game which were a turn off for me and I may discuss them in the future, but overall it was a very easy to get into, exciting and challenging game. I recommend it to anyone who likes dungeon crawling but doesn't have enough time for proper RPGing or one of the old skool dungeon crawlers.
This week I'm hoping to play with my the Talisman City expansion, along with everything else. And also try out Zpocalypse for the first time. I've also made a couple of updates to Wastelands which I really want to play test again. I want time to design games again... but priorities and deadlines... blah blah blah...
I spend my life dreaming of playing and designing games. But my thoughts recently have been too erratic to put down in any cohesive way.
Recently I've been enjoying the delights of World of Tanks on xbox live. It's a thoroughly gripping and well designed game, which you can enjoy for free, but equally, if you want, can start pumping all your cash into the progress more quickly!
I feel the design of World of Tanks is very good though because I don't really feel any great need to pump money into it, at least, not for a good long time. It's only now that I've got some of the higher level tanks in my sights (to unlock) that investing a little money is starting to become more tempting. But I think this is a perfectly legit way to have designed the game. Forcing people to invest money to get any real depth out of a game from the get-go, when you've advertised it as free-to-play, is scandalous and becoming all too common - particularly in the mobile gaming market. Making an investing feel more and more appealing as people invest more and more time in the game feels a very sensible and honest approach.
Xbox live recently reduced Dante's Inferno to a few quid, so I invested. I've mentioned it in the distant past on this blog, but just to quickly go over it again, this is a God of War style hack'n'slash but set in the awesome setting of hell. As a single player experience, for a few quid, this game is an absolute must for those who like good story, engrossing game play, a stunningly evocative setting and harrowing sound track. Can't wait to give a little time to this one again.
I've not played Dark Souls since I downloaded World of Tanks. But it sits there, whispering in my ear, tempting me to dare crack it. To be honest I'm glad of the break from it. It'll make it that much more pleasurable when I decide to go back.
-------------------------------
In boardgaming news, my mates and I finished a whole campaign of Descent! Was a little bit of an anti-climax at the end, but we enjoyed it and look forward to playing again and even trying a different campaign. There are a few aspects to the game which were a turn off for me and I may discuss them in the future, but overall it was a very easy to get into, exciting and challenging game. I recommend it to anyone who likes dungeon crawling but doesn't have enough time for proper RPGing or one of the old skool dungeon crawlers.
This week I'm hoping to play with my the Talisman City expansion, along with everything else. And also try out Zpocalypse for the first time. I've also made a couple of updates to Wastelands which I really want to play test again. I want time to design games again... but priorities and deadlines... blah blah blah...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)