Get Ready To Grind Yourself Retarded

One of my current favorite web video series at the moment is The Escapist's Zero Punctuation. Ben Croshaw definitely has his own brand of humor, but I feel the need to comment on one of his common criticisms: grinding for inordinate amounts of time. First, a definition.

Grind (v): To repeatedly perform an identical action or sequence of actions in a game solely for the purposes of advancement otherwise unreachable.

Being forced by a game to perform the same action or actions over and over again is actually what gaming is usually about. Take any game you can think of. FPS, RTS, casual games especially, they're just an endless repetition of doing the same thing over and over and over, until you either fail to perform that action correctly a certain number of times, or you get bored/tired, and go to do something else. This isn't necessarily bad. Can you imagine a game where controls changed every two minutes, along with the perspective, goals, and game mechanics? It would be horrible and confusing. It could be intriguing to some (see: masochists,) but for most people, it would something that would be set aside almost instantly.

So, assuming that almost all games are a set of repeated actions, what makes some mechanics fun, while others are more boring and tedious than de-lousing your grandpa? Why is it that battling 500 rats or goblins to level up is mind-numbingly sloggy, whereas blasting your way through the Combine, Covenant, or NOD fun?

Pardon me for using programmer-speak if you're not into that, but the answer is shifting arguments. If you're the Ruby or Python interpreter, you don't mind seeing the same function called with the same values 500 times. You're a computer program, you don't even have feelings. In fact, why are you reading my blog? Get back to work, damnit.

Ahem.

As I was saying, people are not computers. We like things to change frequently, but in small and occasionally medium-sized ways. For example, most JRPGs I've played are basically big grinders wrapped in a tissue-thin container of plot. You encounter some bad guys, you have to hit "Attack" or "Magic," and direct death towards your enemies. Occasionally, there's a cool cut scene thrown in. This could be fun for a while, but eventually you know the key controls that you could be a blind vegetable (personally, I like carrots, but some people are partial to broccoli) and achieve the same results. The original Pokemon games (Red and Blue, for you youngsters) realized this, and also realized one of the potential ways to fix it. If you have so many different enemies that you only counter the same one every once in a while, it isn't that monotonous. Eventually, that will get boring, but before it does, they let you advance onto a new area with a new set of creatures to brutalize and enslave.

Causal games are the kings of grinding. In fact, it's pretty much their modus operandi. You take one concept, one mechanic, and apply it ad nauseum until the player is either comatose or victorious. Why are they still ridiculously fun (and addictive)? Variation. Bubble bobble and Sudoku wouldn't be fun if they had the exact same patterns every single time. Even before computer games were invented, we had crossword puzzles that had the exact same concept. Do a thing, change the parameters, do the thing again, etc.

So how does fun repetition become painful grinding?

1. When you want to advance in the storyline, but can't because you have to grind some more. This is almost more of a pacing issue than it is a game mechanic issue. Of course, you don't want to just shuffle the player from cutscene to cutscene, with barely any gameplay (unless you're Devil May Cry 4, of course) but at the same time, you don't want the player to be so bored that they turn off the game before they get to the next plot point.
2. When the challenges don't change at all. This should really be a no-brainer. It's why Postal workers used to go crazy. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. If you don't want your players to be bored, than switch things up a bit. Vary the enemies somehow. Difficulty, color, tactics, numbers, whatever, just try to throw a wrench in the player's grind machine every once in a while. They'll be surprised, possibly angry at first, but hey, angry beats bored.
3. When the types of challenges don't change. This is subtly different from #2, but important. It's actually the reason why the concept of "boss battles" has done so well throughout the course of video game history. This is the "medium-sized" shift I was talking about earlier. The game mechanics can still be the same here, but there has to be a significant shift in what the player is doing with them. Instead of slicing through hordes of little enemies, they're fighting one very difficult one. Instead of building up a base and defenses, building an army and attacking, the player is given an army, and shoved out the door to complete an objective. Minor changes like the ones mentioned in #2 will hold off the feelings of grinding, but nothing abates them faster then having their usual plans rendered temporarily useless.

Whenever I design a game, or even a game mechanic, I always have to ask myself "would this still be fun after two hours?" I think that if more game designers did the same thing, then we wouldn't have to hear about how someone had to grind all night to get the items necessary to get up to level Y so they could make beef stew.

Why I Hate Flash

I could apologize for this being the first post in two months, but I won't. This is my third rewrite, mostly due to my incompetence, but frankly it's beginning to wear thinly on me.

I'm currently taking a game design course at my university along with two of my friends. Woo and yay. A class that actually may have some bearing on what I might actually do with my life. Don't get me wrong, but I don't see any time in my future when explaining if the character in John Updike's A&P will be required of me in the line of work. Anyways, I love gaming, I love game design, I love talking about game design, and I like several people in the class. However, after our first meeting, I feel a little down. Why? This sentence:

"2D Games will be done in Flash."

Well, there's the chandelier made of rabbit droppings. I despise Flash, and apparently most people cannot understand why, so I'm going to lay it out here, as much for me as it is for the half-dozen other people who will read it.

First and foremost, I don't like Flash because I have to pay to program it. This, if you didn't know, is a bit of an anomaly in the programming world. With the exception of Flash, there isn't a single other programming language that you have to pay to use. Even Microsoft's .NET languages have an open framework, and if you'll really itching to do some Mac-Based VBscript, you can use the (open-source, no less) Mono project headed by Miguel de Icaza.

As a student, the cheapest I could get flash for is around $250. If I wasn't a student, this price point goes up to $700. I have no problem with Macromedia Adobe wanting money for their code, that's all well and good. However, there is NO WAY to do anything in flash without using their IDE. Microsoft's Visual Studio is a great IDE. It comes with lots of awesome tools built in, and that's effing sweet. It also costs around the same amount as Flash. I couldn't find the exact price point, mostly because I was bombarded with offers for trial and free versions. There is a free edition of almost every Microsoft Developers product. They're called the "Express" editions, and though they lack the bells and whistles of the paid versions, they still get the job done. In fact, if you're a student, you CAN get free versions of the full product. Yes, that's right, you can get Microsoft products for FREE, if you're a student.

The reason for this is that Microsoft wants to get students used to using their products and their languages. It's a little sinister when you think about it, them baiting you with freebies when you're a poor college student, but Adobe doesn't even attempt to do the same thing, and basically just flips you the middle finger.

When I bring this point up, most people say "Why don't you just pirate it? Problem solved!" No, you vacuum-craniumed dolt, I'm a programmer. I want to get paid for the programs I write. If someone wants to charge for their program, that's fine by me. I love open source, but hey, someone's got to make a living somehow. If I don't want to pay for their development environment, then that should be their problem, not mine. My problem is that I cannot do Flash development without buying their product. Stealing it would be similar to a wheat farmer stealing potatoes. It's just wrong. Hell, I'm sure that half the reason Flash is so expensive is to offset the lost profits from people pirating it.

The other big pro-flash reason I get is this: artists use it. Well you know what, screw the artists. Last time I checked, a game artist should be doing artsy things, like drawing or modeling or whatnot. My job is programming, not theirs. If some beret-topped punter is going to tell me that he likes using Flash because he can program in it, that let me get my paintbrush out, cram it up my bum, and start "composing assets." Images are all the same. A JPEG in Flash is a JPEG to PyGame, or OpenGL, or DirectX. You want vector graphics? Awesome. Fireworks does SVG. I checked. If artists want to start doing programming, then I might as well go fly helicopters, because apparently I'm not needed anymore.

As vitriolic as I'm being, there would be one simple thing that Adobe could do that would make them a-ok in my book. Don't sell the platform, sell the IDE. If I can program Flash using a text editor, I'd go for it. Eventually, once I'd made some cash, I'd see the benefits to using the IDE, and purchase it. Having an up-front cost is nothing but an unnecessary barrier that is a relic of a bygone era.

Also, I'm hoping my artist friends take my slurs against them as being all in good fun. ;-P

Gettin Things Done

I went to a meeting for my university's local game dev group yesterday. The discussed topic was "What To Do Break Into The Game Industry." There were some helpful hints as to languages, networking events and the like, but one point that the speakers drove home (and I felt was VERY important) was this:

Make Games

It's so simple, but a lot of people, and not just those in the game development field, have a problem with it. Not just games, but all sorts of programs. In school, we usually just make some throwaway scripts that we use once for an assigment, and never look at again. Knowing how to do stuff is very important. Actually doing stuff, that's a whole nother level. If you go into an interview and say "I know how to do X,Y, and Z," they might be relatively impressed. However, if you can say "I did A, using X and Y, but I didn't get a chance to implement Z yet," that is umpteen times better than the first one. Companies don't care if you know how to do stuff. I know the basics of how to play baseball, that doesn't mean that the Phillies manager is going to be beating my door down trying to get me to join the team.

The problem with this is: making stuff can be tedious, and boring. For every cool bit, there are probably ten times that much of boring stuff that you have to slog through before you get there. It's hard to strike a balance, especially if you're like me and hate doing work in your free time. It's boring, but everything's boring if you do it enough. Try to add new stuff to the boring bits wherever possible, and you'll be okay.

Most importantly, though, do stuff, don't just learn stuff.

Randall Monroe Is A Wise Man

"When designing an interface, imagine that your program is all that stands between the user and hot, sweaty, tangled-bedsheets-fingertips-digging-into-the-back sex."

Yes, it's a little more than we'd actually want to think about our users, but replace the more graphic bit with "leaving work on-time", "playing with their children", or "having the information they need before the big meeting", and it does make a person realize an important fact. Unless you're making a game (and sometimes even if you are), your user could care less about your program. They want to interact with their data, or someone else's data, or data in the "cloud." Your program? They could take it or leave it, depending on the feature set, speed etc.

Your program will often actually be getting in the user's way.

Think about how much crap Microsoft took when they had Clippit, the annoying talking paperclip. Some people still make jokes about that goof, but when you think about it, it's a feature that kind of makes sense. An intelligent help section that assisted you with whatever task you were attempting to complete. Users don't like it when you meddle with them. They might be doing something horribly wrong, (or possibly just differently from how you'd do it) but don't meddle with them. They want to be left alone. If they want help, they'll find it.

That being said, I'm not trying to make a case against unobtrusive guides. If there is a somewhat confusing section of your program, it might make sense to include simple instructions on how to use it, or what type of input format is best, etc.

Remember, your users have better things to do. ;-P

Open-ness: The Business Practice of...Tomorrow

I could explain why I haven't posted in a while, but I'm not going to. Anyways...

I still recieve the dead-tree version of Wired magazine, even though with how long it takes to get to me all the content is online, anda few of their stories really got me thinking. In one camp, there are the articles about how open-ness an freedom is the "new wave" and how businesses are doing well by "opening up." See this article for what I mean. However, this month's cover story (not to mention a slew of similar articles throughout the internet and traditional media) is on Apple's successes in the last couple of years, despite the fact that they're bucking the trend by being as "closed", or as I prefer "evil" as a tech company can be. Sure they're realeasing an iPhone SDK, but with enough stipulations that you basically have to be having your hand held by Apple the whole time if you ever want to do anything.

While I was thinking about that (my rants on Apple are usually more bile-filled, and much longer, consider yourself lucky,) I began thinkning about another tech company that the mention of doesn't fill me with seas of bloodcurdling rage: Nintendo. Not only are they completely locked down in terms of hardware and software, but their adherents and fanatics closely mirror each other when it comes to the amount of devotion said groups express. Everyone gives Sony a bad rap for being so proprietary (which is justly deserved) , but when you think about it, Nintendo is even worse. Their newest-gen console doesn't even play DVDs, for christ's sake. Imagine how (much more) awesome the DS would be if it took SD cards, played Mp3s/Oggs, and had an active and egaging (and supported) dev community. Yeah, there are "hacker" groups that do some cool stuff with it, but when you come down to brass tacks, if you want to make anything for the Wii, or the DS, or the PS3, or anything uncrippled for the 360, be ready to pay through the nose.

My point is thus: Open technologies are awesome, I love them, I can't imagine making anything nowadays without assuming it would be open somehow. HOWEVER, you can still make big bucks by staying closed, and until someone (I'm looking at you Google/Android,) can prove that being "closed" is going to lose to being "open," there isn't going to be a major shakeup anytime soon.

The Desktop Toolbar: Almost Better Than Free Cheesesteak Mondays

If you're using windows (and according to Google analyitcs, you most likely are,) and you're like me, your desktop has a lot of stuff on it. Not clutter, no, these are important things that you use often, like web browsers, ftp/ssh clients, and files/folders that have important information that you use often. Well, that, plus all the other junk you just saved to the desktop because it was the default path. Either way, that stuff's really useful, right up until the point when you hit "Maximize." Then its all hidden, and the only way to get to it is to minimize your (sometimes many) windows to get back to your desktop files/programs.

Unless, of course, you were looking at the toolbars included with Windows XP/Vista. If have tried out the interesting-looking ones (like I did,) you'd find this.

BAM!

Not interesting? Well, clicking the innocuous double-arrows will set YOU straight.

Yeah, that's right. All my Desktop files and folders and everything. Right there. Freaking sweet. No more Windows-D, arrows to folder, Enter, then Alt-Tabbing back to my workspace. None of that. Just click, click, done. I love it. The only thing that could possibly make it any better if the word "Desktop" wasn't there. Maybe just a logo, to save space. Either way, I love the Desktop Toolbar, use it.

Playlist Loading/Shuffling

Sorry it's been so long since my last post. I took a trip up to New York for an OpenSocial Hackathon (which I'll discuss in a later post,) but I just had this thought mulling around my head and felt like writing it down.

I probably use my media player (WMP, Songbird, AmaroK, etc) more than any other program on my computer. No matter what I'm doing (coding, web-surfing, doc writing, or all three,) I'm usually listening to music. I'll pick a playlist, either from my list of pre-made playlists, or just throw one together at the drop of a hat. However, I really hate how most modern shuffles absolutely fail at "shuffling" my songs. On my n800, GP2X, and ipod before that, I could tell that there was no list order, but that the player literally just selected a random song from the list, and played it. Yeah, it's fast, but it's lazy, and kind of infuriating. A few days ago, on WMP, it actually played the same song twice. As far as randomness goes, that's technically random, but I don't like random, I want shuffled.

When you're playing a card game, you don't reshuffle the deck every time someone puts a card down (though that could really screw up your magician friend's magic trick.) No, you wait until the deck has been fully uncovered (or the hand ends.) 

Along with that, even though WMP loads a playlist, it "shuffles" it, but it's pretty lazy as well. That's why when the playlist ends, I coudl theoretically listen to the same song twice. Even along with that, though, sometimes it'll get into blocks where I hear all of an artist's songs right in a row, which is frustrating as well.

I don't have any code at the moment, but it would really be nice if there was a good shuffling algorithm that made sure that artists' songs were kept spread out, prevented playing the same song close to itself, and, in general, made my most commonly performed task a little bit nicer.