This post is in response to Psychochild's state-of-the-industry-style post.
Perhaps the thing he said that bothers me the most is that "we're still stuck with old DIKU gameplay." This hasn't been my experience at all, frankly. DIKU is still the thing that everyone thinks about when they're talking about big successful MMOs, but that doesn't mean they all are.
Dungeon Runners, for example, had combat elements completely distinct from the DIKU style (in particular, ranged attacks had actual paths they followed, and collision detection along that path; this meant 'twitch' gameplay had a real effect. It was a bit wonky since it was server-side, but I think it was a good step in the direction of "do something different." Was it earth-shattering innovation? Of course not, but it did impact the game, and I think it could have become a strong differentiator if other things, like the business model, hadn't let the game down. Similarly, the canceled project I still can't talk about was most definitely not a DikuMUD-style game, and my current project is somewhere off the beaten path too, with collectible card game mechanics in place of many DIKU tropes.
Only one of those three games without the same ol' DikuMUD gameplay is up (or will ever see the light of day), but Wizard101 is a pretty notable success, I think. This dovetails nicely with one of the points Brian made that I really do agree with - 2010 was a great year for free to play games. That's probably the biggest lesson I've learned so far - "free to play" may be a dirty word to some, but I think the period of time where every MMO had a mandatory subscription fee is over. Some will continue to go this route, but with the ever-crowded marketplace - particularly with competition (in terms of time spent) from Facebook-style games - games that require a financial commitment to even see have to overcome a lot more inertia, probably through significant marketing spends.
Beyond games I've personally worked on, Brian mentions RIFT quite a bit as a game that's disappointingly DIKUesque, but doesn't touch on the other game Trion Worlds is publishing - End of Nations, which is aiming for the MMORTS label - at all. There's also another studio in town working on a "massively multiplayer strategy game" that I don't know much about, but again: MMOG, not "graphical DikuMUD."
Which projects will pan out? I'm not sure, but I think I can definitely say there's ongoing innovation in online gameplay, and investment in new businesses. It's not the crazy days of yore when everyone was agog at the success of Ultima Online or EverQuest, or the moderately more mature period right after World of Warcraft launched... instead, people are paying attention to (and hoping to capitalize on) the success of Facebook and Zynga. It's a different market, but not a completely unrecognizable one. :-)
Happy 2011, everyone!
Tuesday, December 7. 2010
User Experience vs. Good Programming Revisited
As I've said before, good UI and readable, maintainable code don't mix. But lately I've been inspired to revisit this topic, because it's an idea that has been popping up in other venues as well:
From Ars Technica, a user's perspective: The failure of Gran Turismo 5: the power of menus and UI makes it sound like Gran Turismo 5 erred on the side of code cleanliness and loose coupling in their user interface. That's an understandable tradeoff on such a large project, in development for so many years, where the main focus is on replicating physics (and in fact, creating an incredible experience on a different level), but I wonder how conscious it was. Did they have an overreaching goal to focus on code quality? Did programmers simply mark UI bugs "too hard to implement" or "working as designed"?
Programming in the 21st Century has a related take: "It's extremely difficult to be simultaneously concerned with the end-user experience of whatever it is that you're building and the architecture of the program that delivers that experience."
James is going for a larger point there, I think: Hey, we're making games. Fun games is the goal. Beautiful code is not the goal. But that's not entirely true either; for a game that is in development for several years before it launches, and may continue to be in development for years after it launches. I've spent about as much time working on live, playable games as I have on games before they launch, and as I continue on my current project it's going to become lopsided in favor of the former.
Ongoing maintenance adds different concerns, and makes code quality a much more pervasive issue. At the same time, the whole point of our programming is still to entertain, and the user interface will always play an enormous role in enabling that entertainment. (Perhaps it's no surprise that the coolest interfaces show up in movies, where real programmers don't have to try to deal with it.) Ignoring the gyrations of code to craft the perfect user experience works for a little while... and then the code hyperextends its back. Ignoring the player experience to craft the perfect code is a worse feedback cycle - soon you won't have players to abuse.
Hopefully contemplating the horrible future of our career doesn't get in the way of enjoying the holidays!
From Ars Technica, a user's perspective: The failure of Gran Turismo 5: the power of menus and UI makes it sound like Gran Turismo 5 erred on the side of code cleanliness and loose coupling in their user interface. That's an understandable tradeoff on such a large project, in development for so many years, where the main focus is on replicating physics (and in fact, creating an incredible experience on a different level), but I wonder how conscious it was. Did they have an overreaching goal to focus on code quality? Did programmers simply mark UI bugs "too hard to implement" or "working as designed"?
Programming in the 21st Century has a related take: "It's extremely difficult to be simultaneously concerned with the end-user experience of whatever it is that you're building and the architecture of the program that delivers that experience."
James is going for a larger point there, I think: Hey, we're making games. Fun games is the goal. Beautiful code is not the goal. But that's not entirely true either; for a game that is in development for several years before it launches, and may continue to be in development for years after it launches. I've spent about as much time working on live, playable games as I have on games before they launch, and as I continue on my current project it's going to become lopsided in favor of the former.
Ongoing maintenance adds different concerns, and makes code quality a much more pervasive issue. At the same time, the whole point of our programming is still to entertain, and the user interface will always play an enormous role in enabling that entertainment. (Perhaps it's no surprise that the coolest interfaces show up in movies, where real programmers don't have to try to deal with it.) Ignoring the gyrations of code to craft the perfect user experience works for a little while... and then the code hyperextends its back. Ignoring the player experience to craft the perfect code is a worse feedback cycle - soon you won't have players to abuse.
Hopefully contemplating the horrible future of our career doesn't get in the way of enjoying the holidays!
(Page 1 of 1, totaling 2 entries)
