There’s been a number of stories lately on how scary robots look on the inside.  Reporters keep pointing out how if you take the skin off a robot it doesn’t look so cute and reassuring any more, so those feelings of tenderness and empathy must be fake.  See NPR’s Morning Edition this morning about the seal Paro.  This strikes me as odd.  If we took the flesh off a human, we wouldn’t call the bones cute and cuddly.  We’d be kinda freaked out.  I’ll bet you were just freaked out by me mentioning it.  Why should it be any different for anything else we feel is alive?  Doesn’t that make robots more alive, not less alive?

I had what felt like a big though yesterday. It was one of those times where you think “Wow. Just. Wow. That was one of the biggest thoughts I’ve had in my entire life.” Now, I didn’t actually know if it was all that profound. But I wanted to run around and tell everyone:

The role of business is to make people’s lives better.

Growing up in the liberal parts of this world, I’ve always had an uneasy understanding of business. I respected market forces. But I’ve never thought they were as good as everyone thought that was, either. They seemed to be causing a lot of problems. The goal of business was just to make money, chase the bottom line, please the shareholders, and people usually got hurt in the process. Corporation exemplifies this view point perfectly.

But business does two more things as well: it improves society and it fulfills individual’s dreams. In fact, it’s the arguably best process on the planet for both. Because of competition and the market economy, businesses have created products and services that help everyone lead better lives - lives that are easier, simpler, and more enjoyable. And businesses also create opportunities for people to spend their lives doing what they like. They not only enables artists and musicians and daredevils and all sorts of crazy “non-productive” jobs, they helps people like me to find others who share common life goals and to achieve them. We have co-workers because of businesses, not because of our goals.

Now the market still isn’t perfect. All you have to do to see this is go to a Third World country and look for the U.S. factories. Wealth creation is not directly related to improving its worker’s lives or society. But business is an improvement - given time competition will indirectly prune out businesses that don’t take care of their workers well, and higher qualities of life will make workers more selective. Technology slowly ease pains and eliminates menial jobs that are forced on people who fall through the cracks.

Maybe it’s a glass half-full outtake on a glass half-empty, but somehow it makes me feel better.

Ah, adaptive difficulty. Nothing makes designers happier, and players angrier, then a game that scales to meet exactly the player’s needs. And it’s a natural benefit (or curse) in procedural storytelling. Players just don’t want to hear that the game is gaming them back. They don’t want to be reminded that a computer is pulling the strings, outsmarting them in a sense, even if it is “for their own good”. At least when a designer lays out the level it’s a human doing it! This is a tough problem, but I think you can approach it 2 ways. Either you approach it as an AI problem (yes, the computer is better then you), or you approach it as a perception problem (this is just how the game was made).

I prefer the latter, but it’s not exactly the same, and it requires a few tweaks. The same kind of tweaks you’ll find in “bad” AI. I think the key is to make the difficulty laggy, like it’s reacting in “real” time as opposed to instantly. In practice, this is good anyways, because in procedural space we’re dealing with discrete fixed difficulty blocks anyways, “encounters”. What this means is that the player can always be “better” then the system. And it can clobber them for getting sloppy, for a little while. I think it also helps to have “tiers” if you’re in an RPG space, an area where the player knows the difficulty ranges between here and there relative to their own level. Consider Diablo 2’s Acts as an example. This has the effect of the player telling the designer what difficulty they want to be challenged at. The more ways you can do this, the better. Just don’t take it to the level where the AI responds immediately. The World Ends With You dynamic leveling setting is brilliant at this - to the point that it’s not really adaptive difficulty at all.

And of course, that’s always the final option. You don’t really need adaptive difficulty based on player intent to do procedural storytelling. You could progress the difficulty based on time passed, or the meta-arc, or the stage in the current story arc. In fact, you absolutely should progress it based on the micro story arc, because this contributes to the story’s tension and builds to a climax. But that will be my next topic.

With apologies to Rod Humble and Charles Joseph, I’m believing differently.  Mechanics have meaning because of their flavor, not in spite of it.  Much the same as in mathematics or the sciences, your tests and data only mean something when put in context of a hypothesis.  The stock market only matters because it’s tied to company well-being.

This doesn’t mean mechanics shouldn’t represent their flavor well.  Clearly, the stock market wouldn’t be useful if it utilized the U.S. terror color chart, or even a company leaderboard.  In fact, and maybe more importantly, this goes both ways.  Mechanics provide meaning to flavor just as flavor provides meaning to mechanics.

Is finding the connection between the two where game design stops being a science and becomes an art?

So I got Age of Conan a couple of weeks ago, and finally decided to try it out. I went through the collective craziness that was the installation, to discover that while I could run the game, it couldn’t stream art in fast enough for me to see what was going on. It wasn’t that big a deal to me, so I figured I’d add a second gig of memory to my machine to see if it helped, and then I’d let it go.

Whoops.

As far as I can tell that second stick of memory fried the board. Over the course of the weekend I’ve ended up basically replacing every part, one by one, as I’ve discovered I can’t reuse it for one twatty reason or another. And I still haven’t actually managed to put anything together yet. I’m kind of scared to, honestly.

I love PC gaming. PC gaming, in a sense, will always be where my heart is. The games that got me where I am today will always be PC games, and in many ways it is still the best platform to work on. But, my God, it is a crappy platform to work with. The sheer number of failures possible at each stage boggles the mind, the wallet, and a huge amount of time:

1. The hardware has to work.  Every component that doesn’t work has to be replaced, if you can even figure out which pieces are the problem.  Spend $100 for each part.
2. The hardware has to be put together correctly.  If something isn’t seated correctly, go back to step 1.
3. The hardware has to be heated and powered properly.  If not, go back to step 1.
4. The OS has to work.  I haven’t tried moving Windows around since they set up all the security locks, so it could mean another copy.  Spend $100.
5. The software has to be installed.
6. The software has to be patched.
7. The computer must have hardware capable of running the software at a decent speed.  If not, go back to step 1.

Notice the amount of time and money between step 1 and step 7.  7 steps, hundreds of dollars, and days of work just to figure out if you can use a piece of software!  Or you could just spend 3x as much on a pre-built system.  And if ultimately you decide it wasn’t worth it, you can’t return the software, because it’s opened.  Or you could just buy a console.  Plug it into your TV, insert disc, profit.  Wow.  When you buy a piece of software, the price tag shouldn’t read:  $50-$1500, use at your own risk.

I know, I’m preaching to the choir here, but it’s easy to forget how ridiculous it is to assume anyone will engage in this kind of maintenance.  There’s a reason the lowest common denominator for games is the browser game.  No computer these days fails to run a flash game.  It doesn’t even need the CD drive, which is good, because that’s not standardized either (see most laptops).  Why hasn’t someone, Microsoft, Dell, Gateway, AMD, IBM, heck Apple, anyone with clout, seriously tried to turn the PC into a closed system?   You know, that thing that’s made consoles so successful.  Given the savings of mass production without customization, software that was guaranteed to run well on all systems would be a godsend.  One ranking that would tell me that it would work, not just the useless “Windows score” in Vista, something that’s a true guarantee that I knew when I bought the machine.  A “Dell 2″ or higher.  A Playstation 3.  PC specs are pretty standardized these days anyways, despite the intense craziness involved in setting them up.  All you really need is the CPU+memory and the video card.  And as a software producer, I’d love it because it just might bring back all those lost, confused customers that have stopped buying PC games for some obvious reason.  Given the amount of money spent in either PC build failures or package markups, it seems like there’s a lot of money to be made.  I’d buy one.

Magic: the Gathering is a great pastime of mine that deserves special recognition because it is probably the most designed game on the planet. The amount of design and development focus that’s gone into the last 10+ years of the game is unparalleled, and it shows in the thousands of cards. A couple of weekends ago I was lucky enough to be invited to my friend’s Magic Rotisserie cube draft, complete, of course, with Rotisserie chicken. The cube was based on the Lowryn block, built with my friend’s favorite cards from the 2 sets. The whole thing took something like 9 hours (4 to draft, 5 to play), and we only drafted the first 30 cards/deck. After the first 10, we had to start picking 2 because it was taking so long. But sooooo much fun. The power level was awesome and it was really interesting how you knew the decks you competing against and adjusted your draft to beat those. I think the best thing about the format was how it brought deck building skill directly into drafting. Highly recommended (if you’ve got the time). Those first picks were agonizing!

For those of you curious, here’s the pick list and final results:

PS One of our friend’s showed up late, so he ended up building an awesome deck with the cards left over! He’s at the end.

PPS Names have been changed, except for mine!

Pick Order:
Tim
Dan
Gary
Jim
Regie
Terry
Han

Picks:
Mirror Entity
Chameleon Colossus
Profane Command
Chandra Nalaar
Liliana
Bitterblossom
Titan’s revenge
—————-
Garruk Wildspeaker
Stinkdrinker Bandit
Wort
Wild Ricochet
Shriekmaw
Imperious Perfect
Ajani Goldmane
—————-
Militia’s Pride
Imperious Perfect
Shriekmaw
Incandescent Soulstoke
Mad Auntie
Nameless Inversion
Austere Command
—————-
Thundercloud Shaman
Nameless Inversion
Boggart Mob
Horde of Notions
Nameless Inversion
Obsidian Battleaxe
Borderline Behemoth
—————-
Sunrise Sovereign
Obsidian Battleaxe
Ashling the Pilgrim
Smokebraider
Door of Destinies
Violet Pall
Oblivion Ring
—————-
Oblivion Ring
Oona’s Blackguard
Weirding Shaman
Supreme Exemplar
Smokebraider
Immaculate Magistrate
Oblivion Ring
—————-
Brion Stoutarm
Eyeblight’s End
Smokebraider
Flame-kin Harbinger
Lightning Crafter
Mulldrifter
LeafCrowned Elder
—————-
Primal Command
Oona’s Blackguard
Knucklebone Witch
Flame-kin harbinger
mulldrifter
Eyeblight’s ending
wizened cenn
—————-
cloudgoat ranger
bramblewood paragon
mull-drifter
Spitebellows
StenchSKipper
Eyeblight’s Ending
Timber Protector
—————-
Final Revels
Scion of Oona
Caterwauling Boggart
Nova Chaser
Dread
Bramblewood Paragon
Cloudgoat Ranger
—————-
Taurean Mauler, Wizened Cenn
Wren’s Run Packmaster, Vigor
Changeling Beserker, Makeshift Mannequin
Nevermaker, Lash Out
Fodder Launch, FOdder Launch
Mistbind Clique, Sower
Weight of Conscience, Weight of Conscience
—————-
Crib Swap, Thorntooth Witch
Pestermite, Vendillion Clique
Frogtosser Banneret, Frogtosser Banneret
Brighthearth Banneret, Brighthearth Banneret
Lashout, Lashout
Elvish Harbinger, Elvish Promenade
Incendiary Command, Brigid
—————-
Galepowder mage, Kinsbaile Borderguard
Elvish Harbinger, Rhys
Changeling Hero, Reveillark
Soulbright Flamekin, Soulbright Flamekin
Rage Forger, Rage Forger
Silvergill Douser, Cryptic Command
Thorntooth Witch, Avian Changeling
—————-
Avian Changeling, Avian Changeling
Pestermite, Shapesharer
Tarfire, Tarfire
Flamekin Brawler, Ceaseless Searblades
Vivid Crag, Vivid Crag
elvish Handservant, elvish Handservant
Knight of MEadowgrain, Thoughtweft Trio
—————-
Feudkiller’s Verdict, Preminent Captain
Wren’s Run’s Vanquisher, Wren’s Run’s Vanquisher
Vivid Marsh, Vivid Marsh
Flamekin Brawler, Ceaseless Searblades
Squeaking Pie Sneak, Squeaking Pie Sneak
Notorious Throng, Widewind the Biting Gale
Fertile Ground (2)
—————-
Fertile Ground, Doran the Siege Tower
Pestermite, Faerie Harbinger
Prickly Boggart (2)
Inner-Flame Igniter, Cloak and Dagger
Marsh Flitter, Briarhorn
Cloudthresher, Nath
Warspike Changeling, Boldwyr Intimidator
—————-
Runed Stalactite, KNight of Meadowgrain
Jagged Scar Archers (2)
Mudbutton Torchrunner (2)
Cloak and Dagger, Hostility
Boggart Harbinger (2)
Moonglove Extracts (2)
Treefolk Harbinger (2)
—————-
Bosk Banneret (2)
Broken Ambition (2)
Warren Pilferers (2)
Vivid Creek (2)
Whirlpool Whelm, Broken Ambition
Hunting Triad, Leaf Gilder
Kithkin Greatheart, Burrenton Bombadier
—————-
Stonehewer Giant, Giant Harbinger
Lys Alana Huntmaster, Wolfskull Shaman
Footbottom Feast, AEthersnipe
sunflare shaman, flamekin spitfire
Lowland Oaf, Thornbite Staff
Latchkey Fairy, Stoneybrook Angler
Orchard Warden, Reach of Branches
—————-
Dauntless Dourbark, Unstoppable Ash
Latchkey Faerie, Oona’s Prowler
Thornbite Staff, Tar Pitcher
Whirlpool Whelm, Sunflare Shaman
Vivid Meadow, Wispmare
Woodland Changeling, Woodland Changeling
Burrenton Bombardier, Shard Volley

Regie vs Gary: Gary
Jim vs Tim: Jim
Terry vs Tim: Terry
Ken vs Han: Ken
Dan K vs Han: Han
Gary vs Han: Gary
Terry vs Gary: Terry
Terry vs Dan K: Dan K
Terry vs Ken: Terry
Gary vs Jim: Gary
Regie vs Tim: Regie
Dan K vs Ken: Dan K
Dan K vs Gary: ?

—————-
Tim:
2 Cloudgoat Ranger
2 Wizened Cenn
Brigid
Galepowder Mage
Burrenton Bombardier
Stonehewer Giant
Kinsbaile Borderguard
Mirror Entity

Sunrise Sovereign
Borderland Behemoth
Warspike changeling
Taurean mauler
Boldwyr intimidator

Brion Stoutarm

Ajani
Militia’s Pride
Feudkiller’s Verdict
Oblivion Ring
Shard Volley
Incendiary Command
Runed Stalactite

8 Mountain
9 Plains
—————-
Jim:
2 sunflare shaman
2 Flamekin brawler
2 soulbright flamekin
2 Ceaseless searblades
2 brighthearth banneret
2 flamekin harbinger
flamekin spitfire
smokebraider
Nova chaser
spitebellows
Incandescent Soulstoke

Supreme Exemplar
Nevermaker

Chandra
Lash out
Wild Ricochet
Whirlpool Whelm

2 Vivid Creek
??? other lands

—————-
Regie:
2 Frogtosser banneret
2 Prickly Boggart
2 Boggart Harbinger
stenchskipper
mad auntie
weirding shaman
boggart mob
knucklebone witch

2 rageforger
caterwauling boggart
tar pitcher
lightning crafter

Wort

2 fodder launch
lilana vess
2 tarfire
thornbite staff
door of destinies

10 swamp
6 mountain

—————-
Han:
2 treefolk harbinger
2 bosk banneret
dauntless dourbark
orchard warden
timber protector
leaf crowned elder
unstoppable ash

2 thorntooth witch

avian changeling

doran

3 fertile ground
reach of branches
garruk
primal command
2 oblivion ring
austere command
final revels

10 forest
5 plains
2 swamp

—————-
Dan:
2 Elvish Harbinger?
2 Wren’s Run Vanquisher
2 Bramblewood paragon
2 imperious perfect
2 Jagged-scar archers
wren’s run packmaster
vigor
chameleon colossus
rhys the exiled
immaculate magistrate
cloudthresher

nath

elvish promenade
hunting triad
2 eyeblight’s ending
2 obsidian battleaxe

13 forest
4 swamp

—————-
Terry:
2 pestermite
2 latchkey faerie
sower of temptation
mulldrifter
silvergill douser
faerie harbinger
vendillion clique
mistbind clique
scion of oona

2 oona’s blackguard
stinkdrinker bandit
oona’s prowler

notorious throng
broken ambitions
cryptic command
2 nameless inversion
violet pall
bitterblossom
eyeblight’s ending
moonglove extract

9 island
8 swamp

—————-
Gary:
2 smokebraider
2 mudbutton
ashling
changeling berserker

2 shriekmaw
marsh flitter
dread

2 mulldrifter

changeling hero
reveillark/briarhorn/aethersnipe

2 lash out
footbottom feast
profane command
makeshift mannequin
nameless inversion
broken ambitions
whirlpool whelm

2 vivid marsh
2 vivid crag
vivid meadow
??? other lands

—————-
Ken:
2 drowner of secrets
2 merrow harbinger
2 fallowsage
sage of fables
ink dissolver
grimoire theif
silvergill douser
surgespanner

2 goldmeadow harrier
2 judge of currents
harpoon sniper
stonybrook schoolmaster

Sygg

2 summon the school
neck snap
jace
merrow commerce

There was a great article on gamasutra by Lorenzo Wang highlighting some recent lessons from science studies about happiness. It’s worth the read. A lot of these made intuitive sense, which is always nice, and his applications are great, but I found it hard to track all of them together, so I’ll list them here:

1. Happiness is relative.
2. People suck at predicting their future enjoyment.
3. People rationalize their happiness.
4. Feeling in control is a significant predictor of happiness.
5. Happiness is a perspective.

No deep analysis tonight, but most interesting to me is that while these seem simply exploitable, this means it could be a starting point for new games that focus on maximizing people’s happiness.

(I’ve been out of town for a bit, but a couple of weeks ago I discussed some of the initial PR around Valve’s upcoming co-op shooter. I’m going to turn this into a series discussing what I’ve learned about procedural storytelling, hopefully an area of interested and one of my passions and areas of game research.  I’ve unfortunately had little luck finding many experts in this field, so much of my work has relied on science techniques, trial and error, and analysis.  Forgive me if these thoughts are stale and don’t hesitate to point me in an stronger direction.)

This week, I saw this interview with Doug Lombardi:

“A lot of co-op games become very predictable and static after the first or second time you play through it. The AI Director is generating the population dynamically each time you play through the game. It’s also sort of monitoring your success rate and scaling the difficulty, based on if you’re doing well or if doing badly it’ll turn up or turn down, sort of, the action. And it’s also looking at pacing, which is something we found to very important in the creation of the Half-Life games. Trying to avoid too much combat and making the player feel sort of battle fatigued, if you will. Where they need to put the game down, instead we’re trying to schedule those breaks in the game… keep the game dynamically tailoring to the player’s experience whether it’s that difficulty setting, the battle fatigue and scheduling the pacing, etc.”

And I thought the AI Director was a great idea before! 2 thoughts: One, kudos to Valve for actually finding a way to do this. I’ve got a number of friends of there and it’s neat to see them working on this stuff. I’ve found procedural pacing control is still in it’s infancy, and in my experience most developers aren’t willing to take this kind of risk. Second, pacing is a word I haven’t heard in PR before. Why are they using a word associated with storytelling when story doesn’t seem to be the goal at all?  On some level, Valve wants to control the entire player’s flow through the experience, something that very few non-competitive games have done.  I have to admit my surprise to see this coming from the co-op multiplayer sphere rather then the single player realms that I have been focused on, but on reflection it makes sense. Why? I haven’t played Left 4 Dead yet, but to answer that I’ll have to compare it with the last comparable situation I can think of: Diablo 2.

In Diablo 2, a game designed for team play, there was a main game and then a replaying game.  In the runs through the main game, the experience was deliberately planned out, just as most single player games are. Even though it used dynamic spawning, it carefully followed the “easy-easy-hard” difficulty model to create dramatic arcs within the game and give the game a controlled pace and a tense experience. Co-op play increased the challenge a fixed amount, keeping the overall challenge static.  But once players had beaten the main game, they would continue playing by teleporting around and replaying the areas that would give them the best rewards, the “replaying game”. Since the fixed challenge throughout the main game is now too easy, the replaying game flow is designed to become player-controlled to accommodate the array of co-op team skills and character levels, despite leading to “farming” and losing all sense of story.And it was mighty fun! In fact, just like with World of Warcraft today, many fans don’t believe Diablo 2 really starts until you have beaten the main game. Diablo 2 showed that  variety, challenge, and pacing in the main game were not just the basic components of its narrative experience but key components of the game’s replayability, even after the designed narrative experience functionally ended. Players deliberately manipulated challenge, variety, and pacing to maximizing their performance, even at the expense of crafting dramatic arcs. Players, to wit, seem to prefer mechanically rewards, ie leveling up, rather then narrative rewards, but there are manipulatable controls that link the two.

This is significant because it shows a mechanic experiential benefit for storytelling beyond story, a game-y justification that players and designers are already engaged in. Diablo 2 players were taking control over challenge, variety, and pace. In a sense, these players were also creating their own player narrative alongside their maximally fun experience.  It was just a narrative the designers had to let go.  So if we choose to maintain these components it should keep the game replayable and cooperative and could also through a stronger narrative into the mix!  Left 4 Dead sounds like it’s taking a stab at this by addressing the following direct corollaries:

1. Players are bad at forming dramatic arcs in their play, so we should create the structure of them for the player.

2. Players will happily do things that destroy dramatic arcs, so we should not reward them for doing so.

And we are back to Doug Lombardi.  These goals both depend on pacing control.  Game structure is heavily based on controlled pacing - in that it requires some control over sequencing.  Rewards are directly linked to pacing, as seen in the psychological study of reward schedules.

Left 4 Dead appears to be tackling these goals using what I call “Encounter Scheduling”. On one hand, they are tracking the schedule of the players, their current narrative arc, and attempting to manage that using different numbers and difficulties of enemy spawns.  While the narrative here is probably quite primitive, it accomplishes the main goals, namely, building a cohesive line of play for the players, and providing challenge, variety, and likely tension as well.  In my research, I’ve found the narrative limitations here appear to be actually limitations of the game mechanics themselves, not the narrative form, and if the player has bought into the game this style feels quite comfortable.  Multiplayer deathmatches are a good example of similar simple narrative arcs and flows, bounded by their inherent mechanical depth.

Additionally, Left 4 Dead seems to eschew the traditional mechanics that break narrative flow, and consequently co-op replayability.  Level grinding seems absent, for example, as well as (hopefully) backtracking through “cleared” rooms to pick up items and player-created lulls caused by confusion or unfortunate design that suck the air out of most combat games. In the trailers, the game seems to constantly push you forward, encouraging you to engage with the narrative and the game mechanics it intertwines rather then “game” the story.

Narrative and the game mechanics it intertwines.  This startling statement is why I think we find the idea of procedural storytelling so compelling, why I think is likely to become a major component of future game designs and game art, and why I think Left 4 Dead could be so significant.

It’s worth pointing out that this doesn’t seem to be dynamic difficulty as we traditionally understand it, contrary to the press interview, and it brings with it a fair amount of innovation risk, so I’ll make this my starting point next time.  If the difficulty, a function of challenge over pace, is automatically being controlled by the procedural narrative, the “Encounter Manager”, what what satisfaction of accomplishment is ultimately being earned by the player?

guyal brings up a good point in the comments.  Humans seem much more likely to ascribe connections to things on a macro level then a micro level.  In my generated story research, it’s actually proven critical.  Without this trick, this logical leap of the brain, procedural content because much harder to tie together, because the AI has to determine intent on it’s own and then communicate it to the player as well.  It’s easier if people just make intent up themselves, guided by common cultural clues.  Try laying a few randomly chosen game events next to each other and to see the connections and stories people will create.  In an interesting twist, I recall even the chapters of Don Quixote were designed to be read in any order and form an interesting plot, as was the style at the time.

I can’t find an online reference so correct me if I’m wrong.  But my search did turn up these thoughts on some of the rules of story and how to apply them to procedural storytelling.  I get so excited about this stuff.  I’ve researched and used some of these rules, but this covers a broader level of detail then seems necessary in most games, filling in too many details you could say.  But the key here is that there are rules behind stories, and rules are things we can program.  We just could use more precise rules then Mr. Simakov presents here.

The Queen of Interactive Fiction Emily Short posted some great writing tips over on her blogs.  I find IF construction fascinating, and their insights on the genre unique (as seen in Emily’s review of Portal).  Inform 7 is a great training tool if you’re an aspiring game writer, at least as a start.  The games are easy to explore too, and quite exciting and groundbreaking, a must if you haven’t tried them recently and you’ve got a few free hours.