[ok, i want some kind of llama award for using 1000s of words)
let me first say that i STRONGLY disagree with the comments above suggesting that having lots of variation in TV gameplay "weakens" it. i think the real solution is definately to provide a range of choices... but to keep that core tribes movement & universe at the center.
simple things are the most fun, but the most dangerous for a developer because you are tossing out a sweet set of assets and physics, but then gameplay evolves beyond the immediate design. you cannot predict the BEST gameplay.
no way in friggin hell did ANY of the top online fps games/gametypes get completely envisioned in their eventual reality... up front by the developers.
when they made bf42, they only dreamed of the gameplay. mappers could try to channel the dynamics and set the banks of the stream... but once the gamers show up... **** blows up and takes on a life of its own.
with "sportsy" stuff, i think it's even much moreso a matter of these emergent skills and tactics.
problem is that this can be VERY unfriendly online, as only a small group of clanners might develop these high level tactics and basically RUIN the pubbing.
for tribes... that's akin to the debates around old school skiing. it evolved on its own... but it still has to be within reach and FUN for the newbies. tribes2, imho, successfully opened that up to make tribes movement more accessible and more popular. anybody saying it should be "harder" to ski shouldnt be in game development...
basketball isnt fun cuz it's hard. if that was the driving force behind human sport, we'd see more 1-legged special olympics. last time i checked, the special olympics didnt get prime time television coverage. LOOK AT ME, I CAN RUN AND ITS REALLY HARD TO DO IN CRUTCHES - HOW 1337 OF ME!!!"
however, we watch the top tier players PLAY the sport cuz their exceptional abilities ABOVE the base-line required to enjoy the game. plus... we watch cuz of the STYLE involved, the nuances... and most importantly... cuz the teams represent something we can identify with: cities, nations, hot chicks, etc.
i think we have to be careful with the sports analogy. EA Sports can bank on existing sports, existing teams and offer a living-room based experience. the rules are pre-set. the interest is already there. all they do is provide a simulation and a vicarious experience that improves every year.
online fps is a whole different reality... as it stands now. we're a rather strange niche community that is spoiled beyond belief and with expectations and social infrastructures that are treacherous for developers.
ok, that was just my preface
KineticPoet said:
There's a huge video game market for sports. Unfortunately, that market (so far) seems to be completely dependent on real sports. You don't hear about massive sales of Deathrow (a critically acclaimed futuristic Xbox sport), huge numbers of people playing Bombing Run (despite a reasonably strong marketing push), or least of all swarms of people rushing to play a fairly silly but demanding game about throwing a flag around.
What you hear about is massive sales of Madden 2046, huge numbers of people playing Tony Hawk, and swarms of people rushing to pickup the latest version of Backyard Baseball for that arcade-y yet familiar sports feel. I sort of agree with TseTse on this. The mass market doesn't seem ready yet for virtual sports that are detached from real sports.
not yet. i think it's possible... and what we're all dreaming of is... HOW?
here's my Sociology of Human Sports 101 attempt... i.e. what i think are the core features of human sports evolution.
they are not inherently spectator activities, although they are SOCIAL rituals and thus play well into spectator media whether a "gladiator" personality driven situation or "Us vs You" situations.
they are all based on very, very simple human pet tricks. the rules evolve over time, across different areas... to reflect fairness and also spectator demands (especially the sports which have evolved in our commercial era).
but for sports to really take off in popularity, the "standards" arent the core issue. certainly for two peopel from different nations to play chess, soccer or whatever... they have to have shared rules and understanding of the game. but the sports... the big time world cup stuff... revolve around IDENTITY.
why do humans CARE about sports? well, women & figure skating aside... it's really a matter of us identifying with what's happening... and getting a raw sense of blood-sport in the matter.
media-driven 'pro' sports are about either big personalities and/or teams we identify with. we either love them or love to hate them. THAT'S why we care.
it's real cities, real colleges, real nations... real personalities we either want to have sex with or beat the living **** out of. it's deeply human.
ive yet to see an FPS or league really focus on collegiate teams or national sponsorship... although in the past year it seems the huge leagues are turning to go right down that well developed path.
FPS "sports" cant take off with just "skills" and gameplay alone.
there are tons and tons of sports and fun games which will NEVER grow into full, popular international media-driven sports.
i think the existing social infrastructures around online FPS are not designed in ways that anybody gives a heck about. clans are mostly friends. some are collegiate. some are city-based.
but until there are infrastructures that mirror how folks actually identify themselves... dont expect folks to flock to watch your matches... no matter HOW cool the gameplay is.
Counter Strike. BF42. UT2k Deathball. TR2. Quake4 CTF. I'm saying it doesnt MATTER which game/gametype it is... not as much as WHO is playing and why.
"Boston College vs UCLA" is gonna infinately garner more interest than "Clan XYZ vs Clan ZYX"... no matter what video game they play.
Developing the gameplay with that in mind? I think that means to leave some room for the kids on the field to negotiate "their rules" a little bit before the match. I think that also means trying to keep the core skills (walking, passing, etc) VERY simple and easy to understand. I think that means that then the real skill and competition evolves around the emergent techniques and STYLE that folks bring to the game.
Style & a sense of personality is gonna be at the center of the video games of the future... that do finally break into the mainstream spectator realm.
KineticPoet said:
Do you think it's better to release a game that focuses on a single game type where you can make sure it's as polished and complete as possible (somewhat like BF1942), or is it better to offer many different choices of game types so that the community can naturally gravitate towards one or another (the T1 and T2 approach)? What are the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches? Which approach will sell more copies and attract a larger, longer-lasting community?
It's a matter of representation. Even above, somebody said that Bombing Run is just like Deathmatch (which is nearly impossible for me to comprehend)... so it comes down to perceptions.
Without a doubt, user-made material (mods, maps) is the driving force of online FPS. Let's just start there. SURE, over half the people playing FPS online in the past 3 years are basicalyl pplaying the same 3 CS maps... but... that was a free choice for a large portion of those people. It was a mod... and thus an "accidental" success, i might add.
I think it's important for a game to really, really represent something clearly in peoples' minds. Tribes represents a whole range of things to a whole range of people. As one of the oldest and most profound FPS series to date... it amazes me how much variation and actual disagrement there is about "what tribes is." It isnt merely a simple "t1 vs t2" thing, either. Personally, I think tribes is about that freedom of movement we all know and love. It's also about larger scale tactical stuff. I originally came from very competitive UT scene, so i think those claming tribes to represent "hard core fast gameplay" are totally nuts cuz that aint the niche in the eyes of 99/100 gamers - but i respect that desire and view of tribes for the future.
So, even with a game like BF42... i have to point out that mods like Desert Combat were a LARGE reason for its popularity online... not merely due to its solid, polished, focused gameplay. I'm sure im not alone in saying that BF42 was one of the VERY few games i actually bought last year... and largely due to the buzz around DC and other mods... not merely cuz of the base gameplay.
Folks flock to games online when they think it's "the place to be" not just at the moment but for the coming few months at least. It's where their friends are going... it's where folks are playing... it's maybe a place they can play as a team with their buddies, etc...
Having a polished focus helps garner the initial wave of players and interest, DEFINATELY.
I wouldnt recommend doing what Digital Extremes & Epic did with UT2k3: having a half dozen gametypes + a dozen mutators. The gametype selection rocked, but i think the mutators really watered down gameplay (especially instagib). Those options would have been great as a free expansion pack 3 months after initial release.
You need to build up that buzz and the shared sense of the game up front... but you need those options (or at least a sense of the game being "a place to be") to keep the game going - which usually means mods, maps and add-ons.
Likewise, catering to the "pro" community isnt a bad idea... as long as it is REALLY clear to them that they arent making a new game for themselves, but are merely those kids on the playing field trying to decide what are fair rules for the match about to be played. If they really, really want something specific to themselves, let them make it... it might work out brilliantly (i.e. base++ into Classic, etc). Trying to force that can easily backfire, in spite of the bitching up-frnt that you didnt cater to them. It's much better to get the core game out, SOLID with a range of gameplay, without dividing the community into snotty cliques based on self-perceived "skill."
Last i checked - most big time sponsored competitive $$$/leagues were playing CS, UT and other games these same snotty cliques call games for "n00bs."
KineticPoet said:
What's the best way to introduce a new game type to the masses? Do you build an entire game around it but risk overall product failure? Or do you include it alongside game types that are known to be popular but risk failing to kickstart the new game type?
if something isnt familiar... it wont be fun.
novelty is great... but it's very risky. i think folks dramatically overstate the role and requirement for innovation and novelty.
folks DO want something "new" of course... but that newness better have familiar elements. guns are helpful
i thikn it's really important to note how the most popular online fps gametypes still revolve around nuanced variations of 2-3 basic human themes.
- us vs them
- capture objective
- capture flag/object
the more complicated it gets beyond that theme, you better build up the players' understanding.
RTCW ET is perhaps the most striking anomaly, as it has a rather steep learning curve for those not already familiar with RTCW or similar games. gratned, the guns and classes arent that complicated... but mixed together with robust co-op style missions... im still impressed at how popular its been (being free kinda helps too).
i dont think a new title and a new commercial product with ET's design would have done very well...
KineticPoet said:
These are tough questions. Game types are weird that way. It's something about their "newness" or lack thereoff. Does an average person run out and buy a game because a friend told them about a new gametype that was released for it? Not really, I don't think. It's almost like a new game type is good at diverting existing attention (which keeps people playing the game for longer) but not so good at attracting new attention (which leads to more people playing the game in the first place).
personally, im still in awe at how poorly Bombing Run did (ut2k3). i think it's without a doubt the most fun "sportsy" gametype in FPS ive seen to date. deathball was an even more simplified "football" variation on that theme, and while popular at first... just couldnt sustain themselves. in fact, all these sportsy gametypes start off REALLY popular and exciting, but basically flop as gametypes. imo, it's because they fail to sustain themselves on pubs.
without a critical pubbing mass, no matter how fun it is... and no matter how many competitive clans you have... it will fail. if folks cant play it "just for fun" from 8pm-midnight without clan BS, then it's doomed. Tribes2 siege gametype was, imo, ruined by the competitive community in that way. it went from being ultra hip and active pubber gametype... to being bogged by clan politics and stupid crap which undermined the pubbing culture. within months, the dozen or so active pubs vanished... only 1-2 pubs stood strong... and they almost were 24/7 spoiled by silly clan politics and crap which turned most people off.
sports gametypes really harness the same exact negative feedback loop by being so well suited for the clan self-interest dynamics.
whereas... in the games & gametypes that succeed over time - the clans support the pubs without that 1337 nonsense.
so, without the critical mass to allow for a long-term pubbing community - gametypes will naturall implode in a furry of "omfg you stole our techniques" and "ok, no more pubbing, let's just practice privately". that's a death sentence to a game if that's a large % of the players...
so, be careful pushing folks into competitive gameplay... instead of
pubbing competitively.
and in my opinion, some of the very, very, very best gameplay ive ever seen was ON clan-run pubs. that's what you really want to support... the eternal, 1337 pickups.
god, ive babbled way too much...
EDIT:
i know for some folks, it's just nearly impossible to "approve" the comment that pubbing gameplay can be excellent.
however, i'd note that top tribes clans STARTED on pubs. ALL gaming started on pubs.
my old UT clan... revolved around 1 pub. it became an umbrella clan to well over a dozen sub-groups... and when ut2k3 came out, it spawned the #1 CTF team which simply couldnt be touched.
my point isnt that they cuold have been #1 without private practice. my point is that they LOVED the game and were part of a pubbing culture... which was VERY competitive... for years.
we all know of such pubs... across many games. that's what drives online gaming...
if you want a game/gametype to survive... support this idea... of very highly competitive pubbing.
when i first boot up a new MP game... first thign i do is try to find a 'favorite' or two. usually they end up being servers run by skilled clans... but clans focused on just having a blast at night, and clans that respect a sane, respectful server (i.e. no hate talk, no cheating, no imbalanced teams, etc).
support the competitive pubs... and you support the game... AND give a strong base for more organized matches to grow out of.
