DIABLO 2

I've just 'finished' Diablo 2. That is, I killed Diablo and completed the 4 acts in normal difficulty, using a Paladin lvl 28. It took me 25-30 hours.

However, the game is far from being truly completed. Once you kill Diablo the Nightmare difficulty level is unlocked, and you can now play the whole game from the beginning. Even more, if you complete it, the Inferno difficulty is unlocked and you can level you character until lvl 99.

Well, not for me. Since I'm generally more interested in the game story I consider I had enough. Plus, all I really wanted was to ensure I had a complete view of the game mechanics.

The truth is I didn't really had much fun while playing it. I find the game flow repetitive, occasionally frustrating and the story quite dull. However, I have to admit that it was a huge step forward. In 2000, the year when Diablo 2 was released, games had little story, online gaming was an exception and the truth is the mechanics are esplendid for hardcore gamers and an inspiration for following games (in fact I think Diablo mechanics influenced World of Warcraft much more than Warcraft 3).

This game excels when played cooperatively. If I can convince some friends to play it, I'd consider to buy the upcoming Diablo 3 to play with them.

10 MINUTES RULE

I found this interesting article about how the '10 minutes rule' could be applied to videogames.

Although the writer puts much effort to show how to do it from a narrative prospective, I think you can achieve the same results using gameplay mechanics: Showing some of your best gameplay features at the beginning, or simply creating an outstanding level design situation that makes the player feel 'Wow! I gotta keep playing this!'.

But anyway I do think you need a 'hook' at the beginning of the game or demo. Otherwise, considering the amount of leisure offerings that a standard user has everyday, he'll downgrade your product from the 'Must to' to the 'If I have free time...' and you're screwed.

PROFESSOR LAYTON AND THE UNWOUND FUTURE

I've just finished the latest of the Professor Layton series: The Unwound Future. Although I briefly played the others, I found this one much more emotionally touching, and that's why I decided to complete it.

The gameplay is just the same: The plot leads the player through different brain teasers. Solving them allows you to advance towards the next chapter. However in The Unwound Future for the first time the main characters seem to have some depth (we're introduced to Layton's former girlfriend, and Luke is sorry because he has to leave Layton). Also, the initial hook (the time machine and its failure) is much more interesting than those from the other games.

The title also features some extra non-plot-related puzzles you can solve independently, and the production values are higher compared with previous games (lots of cutscenes!). All things considered, I had that nice feeling of playing a game that is worth much more money than the one I actually spent. And that's always great.

THE CURSE OF OLD DESIGNS

While watching Richard Bartle’s lecture in the GDC online, I came to think how many game mechanics and design features are here just because no one has thought of changing them since the beginning of videogames. It’s just easier to repeat them over and over.

Bartle uses his experience as the designer of the first MUD (the grandfather of the current MMOs) to highlight how certain decisions they made back in the seventies have been re-used by designers without really asking themselves: Why not do something different?

Bartle remembers how they modelled the game world using English folklore with the today overused dwarves, elves, etc. They also implemented leveling and the beginning of the holy combat trinity (Tank-Healer-Dps). Since then, we’ve seen that formula repeated over and over without much questioning.

But there are many others, most inherited from the design of arcade games:

- Start screen: It was the ‘Insert Coin’ screen in the arcade games. It was useful because it featured a nice loop of game footage to attract gamers. Today most games don’t need it at all. Some single player games have even removed it completely, and they load the last saved game as soon as you put the disk into the console.

- Game length: I recalled this point while reading about one of the most interesting features of LMNO, the failed Spielberg project for EA. They tried to create a 2-3 hours long game, with lots of replayability. Why games must be 10 hours long? I’ve been playing Professor Layton and the Unwound Future lately and the game has obviously been stretched to make it longer, despite the fact the plot stopped being interested hours ago.

- The use of Lives: Back in the old times you bought Lives with your coin. Every extra coin granted a fixed number of Lives. Today is not really needed. In fact most games allow players to revive endlessly. They paid for the whole game, after all.

- Old RPG parameters: Why on earth every RPG game needs to be based on AD&D parameters (dexterity, stamina, etc)? They are confusing, mathy and takes hours to master. Roleplay is based on immersion and stories, not on using the calculator everytime you acquire a new item.

UPDATE

I just uploaded a new version of my website (mainly useful as an online resume) to update several sections and add some more info about my level design skills. However, only minor changes and several images to add flavour.

For some unknown reason one of the sections looks ok in Dreamweaver but once uploaded the format is gone. I'll see if I can fix it in a future update.

EMERGENCE IN GAMES

I bought Emergence in Games in the 2008 GDC at San Francisco. Now that I have the time I eventually read it, and here are my thoughts:

Emergence and its applications on games have been a recurring theme among developers from a long time, particularly since GTA was first released. Many see a potential Holy Grial on it, and there are countless lectures and papers about the subject. At a certain extent this book goes in the same direction. Quoting the author: 'Emergent games are the next step in game development'.

My personal feeling goes in a different direction: Except for some (and succesful) games based on emergence such as The Sims, the majority of games can take little advantage of emergence, except for supporting mechanics such as creating realistic city traffic flows or setting grassland on fire dinamically (Far Cry 2). Furthermore, I don't think the bulk of players are willing to spend time experimenting with the tools the game provides. The majority just want to be challenged, beat the computer and that's all.

So you could say I'm an skeptic about emergence. In order to achieve the industry standards about spectacularity, I think scripting is a much productive way for developers. But who knows, maybe I'm wrong...

NYX QUEST - KINDRED SPIRITS

4 days ago I completed another game, Nyx Quest - Kindred Spirits (PC, Steam). It was developed by Over the Top Games (a group of ex-workmates from Pyro) and it's remarkable because it was made by 4-5 guys but the production values and the scalability of its design.

It was originally created for the Wiiware, and as far as I know it's doing fine (money-wise). I admire the bravery of these guys to open their own studio, and how they created a really nice experience with little elements. The level design in particular offers new challenges in each level, and even some replayability elements. Considering the time and the people needed to build it, it's kind of amazing.

Well done!