A.I.: Swarms of morons, or one big smart M.Fer?

Halo is a franchise that has always been revered for one thing, if nothing else, and that is intelligent enemies. From all I've read and heard Halo 3 is a shining example of this, a game that features intelligent enemies that will use strategy to take you out. Another game that made its reputation almost entirely off of the A.I., despite somewhat lackluster environments, was F.E.A.R. When I played through the game, I noticed on many occasions how much smarter the enemies were than normal enemies. Constant attempts to pin me down and flank me, lots of intelligence that made the game engaging. So that is one way of designing a game, one that takes a lot of time and energy but can have a great payoff.

Another school of thought is, if we can't outsmart 'em, we'll overwhelm them with numbers. The most recent example of this, or at least highly reported on example, is Heavenly Sword. The reviews for Heavenly sword almost all mentioned two things, the brevity of the game and the fact that rather than fighting intelligent baddies, you fight swarms of idiots. I'll call this the Dynasty Warriors school of A.I. There is something to be said for being the player who holds back a tide of enemies single handedly, something grand. There are other games which use this tactic to varying degrees. So which is better? And why would anyone choose to go one way or the other?

Well as to the first question, I'm not sure there is a simple answer. Obviously better A.I. is a plus, a huge plus even. Something important enough it lead the infamous "two Gamecubes duct-taped together" comment. I lament the lack of good A.I. in a game that needs to have it as much as the next gamer. F.E.A.R. was one of those Ah-ha moments, when I saw just how important good A.I. is to the gameplay of a shooter. The difference between enemies that stand around and wait to die and those actively trying to outsmart you is pretty intense. It also adds a significant element of replayability to a game. You can approach fights in multiple ways, because the enemies always do something different. This idea is one that will become more and more prevelant as "next-gen" systems can power better and better A.I. I for one look forward to it.

However, I've also had some amazing times in the one against a crowd scenarios. In fact one of my absolute favorite moments from Guild Wars involves a structure being invaded by a crowd of enemies. As a single player it was hard as hell to hold them all back and was frantic for the entire fight. By the end though, I felt powerful and had discovered that swarms of enemies have their own appeal. So while I'm not saying Heavenly Sword made a wrong decision or a right one, I haven't played it at all, there is a certain appeal to that whole idea. But is it something that can sustain you through a whole game, even a seven hour one? I don't know, it sounds dicey to me and honestly the appeal of good A.I. is such that I'd almost always prefer that to any other set up. The one area that I reserve the right to change that opinion in is the world of the MMORPG. I do think that there is a perfect time and place in the MMO for swarms of enemies as opposed to super powerful single enemies. I know it makes me feel powerful to destroy swarms of creatures.

As to why use one or the other.... well I think I'm going to cap this post off and see if I can get a little help from my friends to get some opinions on that very issue. Until next time.

Places you should be going, regularly for your video game goodness.

So I figured it would be a good idea to link to some of the great places I go for news, messageboard fanboyism, journalism, the inside scoop, and general gaming goodness.

First stop of the day, Gamasutra. This is a great spot for interesting industry articles, as well as a good spot for news. Also where to go if you are looking at job listings. I usually visit this site several times a day and I'm always perusing their backlogs for good stuff.

Next up, my favorite video game blog of multiple updates a day, Kotaku. Home of several writers, Kotaku is another more frequently updated place to find your video game news. It also allows for reader comments, meaning you can get your fill of fanboyish glee at the foibles of whichever console happens to be foibling at the moment. Originally I was a bit put off, because of the far less formal nature of Kotaku, which belies their extremely high quality journalism. Seriously, check out some of their heavier hitting pieces.

On to my favorite blogger, who I believe I've mentioned not once, not twice, but thrice; N'Gai Croal of Newsweek. His blog is called LevelUp and is possibly the best place to go if you want to see what game journalism could be. N'Gai does a great job of delivering both hard hitting interviews and ruminations on the nature of gaming itself.

Another blogger, who is inextricably connected to N'Gai via their excellent Vs. Mode exchanges is the full time video games reporter for MTV news, Stephen Totilo. His blog, which just recently became a group blog of MTV staffers, is found here. He is another wonderful journalist who covers not just what games are, but what they can be in a way similar to Mr. Croal.

Whatabout podcasts you say? Gamasutra has several amazing podcasts, both from GDC sessions and those just involving interviews run by Tom Kim, who is amazing. I also listen to a wide variety of the 1up.com podcasts, from the wonderful 1up Yours to the much more zany GFW radio, home of the irascible Jeff Green.

Finally, if you really want to dive headfirst into the gaming culture, check out NeoGaf. This is where you will find posts from all manner of intelligent gamers, as well as the rabid fanboys of the various consoles. NeoGaf is a far more daunting site, one I have yet to wade into. I've merely dipped my toe in its chilly waters.

P.S. Penny-Arcade is funny, really funny. They don't always know what they are talking about, but then who does?

All in all a worthwhile list for anyone who wants to know more about the industry on a regular basis. Not to mention it lets me post without actually posting any new information. How's that for awesome!?

Games that hurt us.

Well, hurt our emotions anyway. So I've been thinking about the reward-punishment mechanic of video games, mainly because I was reading another Vs. mode from N'Gai and Stephen Totilo. By the way if you haven't read any of those, stop reading this and go do it, they have far more to say than do I about games. It's a very complex system which has grown in many ways since the days of punishing arcade games that were trying to suck another quarter out of your pockets. Xbox live has certainly created a new class of gamer, the achievement whore, that previously didn't have the same forum for gloating as they now do. So even punishing Xbox games have some level of reward built in. However, what do games do nowadays to the player in response to their abilities? Is it better to have a punishing game mechanic or mechanic that rewards players for good play? Maybe it is best to have a little bit of both the carrot and the stick.

This was mostly sparked by the card game scum, also known by less savory names. The game actively employs both a punishment and a reward mechanic. The worse a player does, the more likely things will go poorly for them and vice-versa. The idea seems to be that as a player does worse they will have more motivation to win in order to be the one with all the benefits. In a somewhat real-life scenario, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. My first experience with the game left me with a sour taste in my mouth, undoubtedly due to my position at the bottom of the food chain for the end half of the game. I did however question the value of punishing a player for playing poorly, especially in a game with other players. When you examine the punishing nature of multiplayer games at the morning, you see a multitude of games with tight-knit communities of dedicated players that are not accessible to new players. This seems to be especially true of FPS's and RTS's where learning the game requires time, time that isn't available when playing experts. Now, these games don't have a punishment system built in to them per se, although the purchasing power of a game like Shadowrun or counterstrike could be seen as something of a reward for the good, while punishing the loser. So maybe examining multiplayer games is the wrong way to look at this issue.

So then, we are left with single player games. The most trenchant example of not punishing a player for their lack of skill is the dynamic difficulty of the Naughty Dog games, which become easier if you die repeatedly and more difficult if you breeze through a section. I think it's a brilliant decision on their part, something that sits under the hood of the game and rewards the player for skill by presenting a greater challenge, but also helps a player if they are having trouble. During the 3rd round of the most recent Vs. Mode. Stephen said the following

"Let's radicalize morality systems by turning them into something else: difficulty settings. Want to take the scumbag, Sister-killing approach to get through a game? Well, guess what, buddy? It's going to be harder to win the game. You're going to be given access to fewer tools and abilities. Or...shocker...maybe taking the right path would make the game harder."

In this case the punishment isn't tied in to any lack or display of skill on the player's part, which leads me to agree with Stephen. The idea of punishing a player seems so inextricably tied into the arcade mentality, where every player death represented another potential quarter that to continue to have punishing mechanics that disadvantage the unskilled seems antiquated at best, and decidedly unfun. I'm one who gets easily frustrated at a game that seems to be piling on the hate and the possibility of magically climbing out of the pit I'm in doesn't excite me. Rather I think the concept of giving to a player when they fail in order to help them through the game is much more important. After all, don't we want a player to complete a game no matter their skill level? I did some work on a game during which the difficulty became drastically toned down to cater to the common player, something that I agree is good from a business sense, but that still could be supplemented by containing a greater challenge for the more accomplished player.

This is one of the biggest things that worries me with the Wii. I think Nintendo is missing out by essentially avoiding the hardcore. Yes, catering to the casual gamer is helping their bottom line, but they could have both if they were able to provide that game that was simple enough for the casual gamer, yet could be made a greater challenge for the experienced gamer. Wii sports boxing frustrates me to no end, because the line between new player and experienced player has been blurred to the point of almost not existing. I can flail around and win just as often as when I try to do specific things. There must be a better way to meld the two. Hope to see it soon.

Halo 3.

Whoo boy, so today is the launch of the largest property in entertainment, or something like that. Me, I'm in the not caring crowd. Now, that is mostly due to the fact I don't even own one of them fancy Xbox 360's. It's also due to the fact that I can't quite manage a hard on just for a multiplayer console shooter that is going to be mostly populated by total douchebags. Halo is a good game and I imagine Halo 3 is pretty awesome. So, why complain at all? Well Halo has been the focus of a media blitz the likes of which a single game has never seen. From cough syrup flavored beverages to exceedingly large dioramas that are travelling the country, the push for Halo 3 has had it all. So, that has pushed me from apathy to active distaste for the Frat boy event of the year. Halo is a brilliant franchise and is certainly home to brilliant designers. However, as a pseudo Microsoft employee, I know they've let their heads swell a bit too much. Anywho, I'm not going to be playing it.

I am playing Team Fortress 2 however, because it is so fun. Valve can't seem to do anything wrong. The pricing of the Orange Box has made some people mad, well rather the contents, but as someone who didn't have any of the parts of Half-Life 2, paying $49 for 5 games is so nice, I wish I could buy it again. You should do the same. Steam is the wave of the future, or so we can all hope. I'll be back with more on the subject of games later. For now, I have to work.

Back, and probably not going to last, but I'll try.

Well, I've been inspired by the journalist genius who is N'Gai Croal over at Level Up. I'm going to try and turn this into a semi regular blog about video games and video game related things. Put up some reviews, put up some thoughts, put up some comments. Here's to hoping I can do that semi-regularly and be insightful maybe. I'll probably rant about popular culture as well. Here's to the start of something good, well hopefully anyway.