But one day soon that quiet girl in the corner that you ignored is going to grow up to be a powerhouse and leave you in the dust.

Honest she is. Look…

Social Indicators
According to this Pew report, the digital divide in the west is narrowing substantially because two markets that have traditionally not bought computers and don’t spend the money on broadband–African Americans and Hispanics–are buying smart phones and data plans at accelerating rates.

So not only are there more and more devices out there, they are reaching markets that have been under served by the industry.

Hardware Indicators
Our computers are getting smaller, cheaper, and the performance disparity between a desktop and a tablet grows smaller with every new generation of device. Chipmakers see the mobile market as huge–potentially far greater than the desktop chip set market ever was and rumors are even flying that Intel is looking to get into the smart phone market directly.

Software Indicators
It’s already started, but 2011 and 2012 will see fierce competition between OSX, Win7, and *nix (including both Android and Chrome OS) powered multi-touch tablets. And software interfaces are being rebuilt with fingers in mind instead of cursors.

Unity 3D developed apps will soon run on every single OS and every single mobile platform. Think about that for a second. To date no other platform, certainly not Flash and not even HTML5 really, have been able to make that claim.

Infrastructure Indicators
According to this NPD report 48% of game sales in 2009 were digital.

Digital distribution of film (sales and rentals combined) gained 23% in 2009, while DVD sales were down. Yeah, Blu Ray sales saw dramatic gains in 2009 as well, but I see that changing in the next 2+ years as we get more and more HD capable mobile devices on the market.

So what is the industry waiting for? And if you’re an indie–what are you waiting for?

Gamestop just bought Kongregate. Did you see that coming? What will it mean, long term, for the developers who publish there? #semionautvia Twitter

(via TechCrunch)

So it’ll happen–I just can’t promise when.

In other news, we’re really excited about how the HoneyComb Engine handbook is coming together!

Instead, the the plot must spring directly from the game mechanics themselves. And this means abandoning our traditional notions of what makes for a “good” story structure and focusing on the individual moments that the actor* spends in our storyworld; ensuring they’re meaningful enough for the actors* to create their own rich fabula.

Plot then becomes the result of careful attention to the structure of the game’s sub-systems rather than a linear yardstick measuring the player’s progress along a narrow authorial path.

* I will be writing more soon on my decision to use ‘actor’ rather than audience/player.

On the surface, CD2 feels like an exact clone of the original game, but as you play you start to notice how terribly, terribly wrong they got it. It’s like kids taking apart their tricycle and having a few critical pieces left over when they get done reassembling it.

CD2 guides you when you don’t need/want guidance and somehow manages to make leveling up irrelevant to completing the missions.

The game is certainly more slick than the original, but it’s also much less sticky. I glided across the surface of it until I hit the final mission where all the glaring design and balance issues come rushing to the fore. It’s not that difficult of a game, but they managed to make it tedious nonetheless.

The one semi-highlight of the game was flying a helicopter into an underground cavern and completing a mission without taking scratch. And even that managed to be far more fun in the telling of it afterwards than in the actual play of it.

I can see where they were trying to go with it. I suspect they were trying to broaden the audience, widen the appeal, and introduce some of the same design principles that Ubisoft Montreal is exploring with the decidedly forgiving mechanics in the Assassin’s Creed and Prince of Persia franchises. But where Ubi is mostly getting things right, Ruffian seems to be mostly getting it wrong.

Those of you who gave me feedback on the rough draft for this proposal might be interested to see the actual write-up I submitted after parsing your likes and dislikes. It really bears very little resemblance to either of the previous approaches, but I wouldn’t have broken through those to this one without your help!

Game Masters vs. Rules Lawyers

Are you tired of getting swept up in the epic conflicts of ego that have cast their gloomy pall over RPG tables for decades? These power struggles are exhausting and disruptive, whether you’re an easy-going player, munchkin, game master, or rules lawyer yourself. Corvus Elrod, Indie Game Designer and RPG storyteller of 20+ years, discusses the left/right brain conflicts that feed RPG angst. He’ll then outline strategies–including tips on open-world gaming and the sharing of story control–that will help you put the focus back where it belongs–telling stories together.

The time I’m not spending on panels, I plan to spend napping or running short HoneyComb Engine campaigns. I should have a reservation system online within the next week or two so you can guarantee your spot at one of the tables.

[UPDATE]

I heard yesterday that my other panels were not accepted. While I’m disappointed, that means more time for naps! Or rather-more time for HoneyComb Engine goodness. Who knows, I may even make it to see a panel or two myself now.

Stay tuned for more PAX news as it happens!

In a world full of “Like” buttons, the only form of sanctioned protest is silence. #dystopiannow #someamountofalarmisappropriate #semionautvia Twitter

I finished the story mode of LEGO: Harry Potter this weekend and had only earned 10 (of 36) achievements. One of those was for inadvertently running over Ron enough times while toodling about the Weasley’s yard in a pumpkin car. The rest were mostly for finishing chapters and some incidental in-game activities. Still, I noted that the achievements seemed pretty few and far between during play.

Reviewing my remaining achievements, they’re mostly in the “collect everything/buy everything” vein, which means playing with a very completionist mindset. Now, since I can’t afford to be a completionist LEGO collector in the real world, I’m more than happy to chase down every house quest, gold brick, red box, etc. But not for the achievements, just for the appreciation of the puzzles (more on that in another post).

In contrast, after about 20 minutes of playing Crackdown 2 yesterday, I earned a staggering 9 (of 50) achievements. Most of these were for doing something the first time–activating a beacon, finding an audio log or hidden orb, completing my first road race, etc. Judging by the remaining achievements, it looks like that’ll slow down quite a bit over time, but that I can expect to earn achievements at regular intervals throughout play.

So here we have two very different approaches–L:HP mostly focused on rewarding completion of major tasks and CD2 rewarding your discovery-of and early participation-in the game’s sub-systems.

I’m under the impression that more care was taken to ‘balance’ CD2‘s achievements and your ubiquitous handler even remarks on your agent’s achievements as you receive them, making them directly a part of the gamespace. L:HP‘s achievements, on the other hand, may have taken less thought to implement, but has attached them to the game’s natural enticement to collect every item you possibly can.

Which do you prefer?

Whether the media is a book, comic, film, stage play, fine art, performance art, radio play, or videogame–my contention is that it’s the degree to which the audience is involved that defines the quality of the experience more than any other factor.

During all my musings, I’ve struggled with the term audience I feel that audience typically implies passive consumption, and is therefore not the best word to be using.

I could certainly use the term player, but I feel that player has quite a few connotations–many of which are negative in our culture–that too strongly inform people’s reading. In other words–every time I say ‘player’ I’m going to lose a lot of people to their own interpretations. And even if it’s a temporary loss–a fraction of a second–it’s not ideal.

If we follow the word player back in time, we naturally become entangled with the word play, which has taken on theatrical meanings over the years (due, no doubt, to the close ties between religion, sport and theater). In fact, player and actor were once used somewhat exchangeably.

Actor
late 14c., “an overseer, a plaintiff,” from L. actor “an agent or doer,” from pp. stem of agere (see act). Sense of “one who performs in plays” is 1580s, originally applied to both men and women.

An agent or doer? I rather like that. I also, clearly, am drawn to the performative connotations of the word. And both my critical and consumption approaches fit nicely with the idea that the author is providing a space upon which the actor is allowed to perform–either solely with their imagination as they build a fabula, or actively with a game controller in hand. The author, or playwright, also serves as director–most often via the medium itself–giving cues to the actors as how they should interpret–i.e. perform–the scene.

So media itself does the heavy lifting–serving as script, set, acting coach, and director. The players’ experience no, make that consumption no, make that performance of the media is guided–moment by moment–by the directional cues encoded in the media itself. Some directors are heavy handed with their cues, others sparring.

I think this approach has legs and you can expect to hear more from me on it over time. But first–let me hear from you on it!

The reason film & literary theory don’t translate well to games is that games put the audience on stage & hand them a script. #semionautvia Twitter

Consider a range from Jeff Smith & Dave Sim, to Hergé & Albert Uderzo, to Moebius & Gabriel Bá, who else should I study w/in that spectrum?
CorvusE via Twitter

I am, quite frankly, as interested in your reaction to this grouping of comic artists and my considering them as a spectrum as I am having more name to add to the list.

The Morrigan first appeared during the reign of King Arthur.
Sanctuary, Season One Episode 3: Fata Morgana

Big mythology FAIL by Sanctuary.
CorvusE

Fail? Or Reimagining!
Troy Whitlock

First off, yes I sometimes watch bad television. It’s important to watch other storytelling styles even when they aren’t masterpieces. Only the idle mind doesn’t learn something from eating garbage. Plus, I tend to nap immediately after lunch and miss huge swathes of the episodes that don’t have some compelling feature to stay awake for.

That being said, I want to briefly touch on reimagining our traditional mythologies.

I’m mostly cool with it. Patricia Wrede, Mike Mignola, Pamela Dean, Neil Gaiman, Margaret Atwood, Charles de Lint, Sheri S. Tepper, Chris Carter, Octavia Butler, J. R. R. Tolkien–all these people have drawn upon ancient mythologies and woven them into a contemporary interpretation that significantly adds to our understanding of the original meanings, while making them more directly applicable to our modern culture.

And, on some level, Sanctuary was doing the same thing with the Morrigan in this episode. And in a mildly interesting fashion too. I even (mostly) stayed awake for the whole episode. I won’t go into the details because you can either watch it for yourself streaming on the ‘flixbox, or just apply the theme of this post to your own reimagining pet peeve and comment on that.

So, no. I don’t have a problem with reimagining. But to say authoritatively, “The Morrigan first appeared during the reign of King Arthur,” when there is absolutely no connection between that fact and the content of your “reboot” is, quite frankly, a bit irresponsible.

The Morrigan predate the Arthur myth cycle by several centuries and are specifically Irish of origin. Now, relocating them by five centuries and one island might not seem like a terrible crime in a medium that tends to aim for the lowest common denominator, but I feel there’s no need to shorthand this and it feels like an appropriation of culture. Would it really have been so difficult to have the character say, “The Morrigan first appeared in one of the great cycles of Irish mythology?”

Who knows? It might have led a young mythology buff already familiar with King Arthur down a deep mythological rabbit hole and widen their horizons by quite a bit.

This is likely a problem that is easily fixed, or at least compensated for, by a writer. But for me, as someone who is first-and-foremost a performance-based storyteller, it’s a tough nut to crack. I’ve tried writing as several different characters, but that’s only served to add all sorts of complications.

And then, because I write these largely incomprehensible walls of spaghetti and mush, expecting quality feedback from my editing department is simply not reasonable.

So we’re trying a process now which involves a spreadsheet, small bite-sized chunks of text, and a regular feedback process. It’s working pretty well. I generate an average of 3 short rule explanations a day and Ms. Z–my editing department and the Zak of Zakelro Story Studios–reviews and provides feedback on 5 items three times a week. It’s working pretty well so far. Not allowing myself to write for long periods of time keeps me from verbally wool-gathering and having manageable goals helps Ms. Z provide feedback in regards to the “voice.”

But as we were talking about solutions, Ms. Z suggested I think of the handbook like an actual performance, or a storytelling campaign. She suggested I might find it useful to storyboard the handbook. This makes sense, as when I describe the system in person I indulge in quite a bit of pantomime.

No, I don’t actually wear a beret, striped shirt, clown face, and pretend to be trapped in a box. But maybe I should.

So yesterday I started preliminary sketches–essentially just getting my sketch hand limber again–in order to start roughing out some storyboards. It’s proven to be a very exciting process–thinking about the handbook as… well–to turn to Scott McCloud for a moment–juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer.

Hm. So I’m essentially laying out a comic book. Which, of course, relies on visual storytelling to effectively communicate a lot more information than is held in the text. That certainly sounds like a compelling solution to the problem, doesn’t it? My style, not to mention the style of the HoneyComb Engine itself, is performative. Why not rely on those strengths? So far, it’s been much easier to come up with illustrations to communicate the mechanics. Of course, the big challenge will be a) producing the art and b) organizing it all to make sense.

But, if nothing else, it’s proving a very useful tool for getting me thinking about the handbook in new ways. Everybody should be so lucky to have a creative partner as awesome as Ms.Z.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to put on my leotard and spend a couple of hours expressing the handbook via interpretive dance.

AddiCube is moving along nicely. Charles has a few newer prototypes that use the animations and art I’ve produced. I’ve got quite a bit more animation to do for him, but I’m using a lattice deform rig, so it’s essentially a matter of creating a puppet show. I’m also working on the posters and figures for backer rewards. I’ve got a few of the more simple posters designed, but at least one of the posters is a bit more involved than I initially imaged. The figures will be based on actual poses from within the game and I have higher priority poses to get to Charles before I’ll be ready to give my Benefactors a choice of statues.

I will have one or two short (maybe 4-6 hour) campaigns ready to run for PAX. They will be for 5-6 people. The one I know I’m working on is Space Pirates vs. Zombies!. I may have a second Lovecraftian campaign ready to go as well. The campaigns will have custom maps, pre-generated cards with character bios and portraits, and minifigs all prepared for a fun session.

I’m still only saying “when it’s done” for a release date. There will likely be a Rocket Hub project to fund to the first print run. Contributors will get a thanks in the first edition of the handbook, so stay tuned!

Oh, and true to my word, I’ll be drawing names of people who backed Rachel’s walk last year to get their copies for free, so never fear–I haven’t forgotten those of you who helped her out!

And… I think that’s pretty much everything at this point. If I’ve forgotten something that you know about, this would be a great time to let me know.

We don’t really have to talk anymore, the game just speaks for itself.
Ted Timmins

In reference to Fable 3′s environmental inventory system via The Spoony Experiment (thanks to Charles Berube).

‘Story’ as far as I’m concerned, is only linear after it’s been experienced. Narratives may be linear, but stories grow and develop as you experience the narrative. Russian folklorists refer to story as fabula and Umberto Eco writes that the audience’s experience of the fabula changes with each revelation in the narrative. This means that the story is constantly in flux as the audience reads/views/hears/plays the narrative and thus, based upon the divergent life experiences of each reader/viewer/listener/gamer, the story is significantly different. Different from each other experience and most often different from what the originator intended.

As a storyteller who has a lot of experience with participatory storytelling in a variety of formats (from RPG groups to stage shows which take directional cues from the audience to full immersion participatory improvisational theater), I strongly believe that video games can emulate the strengths of such storytelling experiences while minimizing the inherent weakness of a digital platform. For this to happen, however, the idea of authoritative control over the direction of the narrative must be abandoned. It is only by presenting a seemingly shallow narrative experience, devoid of the notion of “linear narrative” and “three act structure” that we’re truly going to tap into the storytelling potential of new media and video games.

Regarding your concept of Designer Moments. Where do you think scripted attacks fall into it, if they do at all? Such as you know when you reach the red door that 2 enemies will attack from behind every time.
Anonymous via Formspring.me

Everything that happens while playing a game falls into the “Game Moments” approach to analyzing a game. Let’s take another look at the Media Consumption Moments chart:

You’ll notice the labels, DM (Developer Moment) and PM (Player Moment) are actually a very small portion of the field. The largest portion is labeled SM (Shared Moments).

So, to take your example of a scripted event that fires when you reach a red door, I guess the exact answer depends on how the developer handles the scripted event.

Does the camera shift slightly to focus on the door for a moment, while allowing you full control over your character? That’s a shared moment.

As you approach the door, do you lose control and watch an interstitial of your character opening the door? That’s a developer moment.

Once through the door, are you free to act with all available verbs? That’s a shared moment.

Did the developer provide you with a tool you can use to circumvent scripted moments altogether? The argument could be made that while the developer provided the tool, doing so opened up the game to allow for Player Moments.

The trick to this analysis approach is that a “moment” can vary dramatically in length and can even be interpreted differently by each reader/player. But that’s part of my overall point–each reader takes away/provides their own personal meaning to each moment of consumption–so I see this as a challenge in constructing the theory, not a flaw.

After considerable character tweaking, I settled on a really imbalanced character with 10 Intelligence, 9 Agility, Perception, & Luck, and 1 Strength, Endurance, and Charisma. This, after trying a great many character builds and playing them for 45-60 minutes each.

And that’s why I often give up so “quickly” on the more sprawling B&B (Bethesda and Bioware) RPGs. By the time I find a character that I know I can be happy playing, I’m bored with the first hour of content, hyper-critical about the writing, the voice acting, the combat system, etc.

Bethesda features what I call blind customization. Not only do you choose a character appearance that you’ll not really ever see again and that won’t affect people’s reaction to you, but you choose attributes and skills from a lengthy list without knowing how it’s going to impact your play experience. And while it’s nice that Bethesda allows you to change your character after playing an introductory segment of the game, that segment isn’t really reflective of the total play experience.

To Bethesda’s credit, it seems that pretty much any character build is usable in their games, but then I haven’t risked a pure non-combat character because ultimately, something is going to attack you and not listen to reason.

But, and here’s my point, I’d much prefer to play that first hour of content and then start making granular decisions about how my character was going to interact with the world. Or better yet, let the choices I make during gameplay decide my attributes and how characters respond to me, skipping the granular menu-based character building altogether.