Stuart Scott
Games Developer
Associate Design Director
Stuart Scott
Games Developer
Associate Design Director
WriteXP
In a word, The Last of Us is astounding. This is not something that should come as a surprise to many when glancing at the perfect scores that were showered upon Naughty Dog’s latest title by a lot of satisfied reviewers. It is not premature to consider it a triumphant swansong of the current generation as we all prepare to usher in the Next-Gen of home consoles.
However, I don’t want to describe why I thoroughly enjoyed The Last of Us. Aside from it potentially taking too long to explain every fantastic minute detail, I want to focus on a fundamental issue I experienced throughout my time with the story of Joel and Ellie.
The keen-eyed amongst you will notice that, until now, I have made no reference to The Last of Us as a game. Therein lies the issue, and it is one that I just couldn’t overlook no matter how hard I tried during playing. The Last of Us is an intensely gripping story that happens to be presented in a brilliant game that puts the player in the leading role. Unfortunately, one of these aspects can end up being overshadowed or disrupted by the other despite the best intentions of the player or the writer.
Right from the outset I was hooked by the character personalities, the way they moved, the dialog and little nuances of emotion visible on their face whilst playing the game. I was performing the part of a real character in a believable and horrific world and I was completely immersed.
I am Joel, walking with my partner Tess through the dystopia of a world ravaged by an unknown infection. As Tess and I converse on our journey through side-alleys and derelicts I suddenly notice something out of the corner of my eye. As Tess moves the conversation to highly pertinent matters I have wandered away from her and out of ear shot to see what this shiny item laying in a dark corner is. In that moment I am transported from this bleak world back to my living room and I am suddenly incredibly aware that I am actually playing a game.
This immersion breaking incident is not an isolated occurrence as it is largely unavoidable when giving the player free control over the lead character’s actions. In each instance I was presented with a choice to explore every nook and cranny of an area or continue to follow the lead of my NPC guide, I was conflicted about which decision to make. On the one hand I wanted to stay true to the situation and the people involved in this scene, but on the other I have conditioned myself to search everywhere in a game environment for fear of missing that one key resource or collectable.
During these moments of mental conflict, I am no longer focusing on the atmosphere, the nuances of emotion on my partner’s face or the developing story between character conversations. I am focused on playing a game and I am reluctant to miss the potential opportunity to discover some revolver ammunition that I sorely need.
These instances are compounded in a linear game like The Last of Us, where the world is built and themed around the struggle for survival and the constant scavenging for resources. If I choose to ignore that dark room down a corridor in order to continue running with my partner away from an impending threat, I have maintained the reality of the situation but disregarded the scavenging themes of survival that resonate through this presented world.
It is a testament to the believability of the story, its characters and the design of the world that I am often presented with these dilemmas in a game, but it leads to the question of how much further the medium must go to reduce such moments of disconnect. When compared to other storytelling media forms such as TV, film and literature, games can offer an additional level of involvement for its audience, but the benefits can also be its undoing and must be leveraged appropriately.
It is not just Naughty Dog’s offering that can lose audience engagement in these ways, with most games determined to tell a story often hampered by a necessity to allow the player control over the situation. Indeed, temporarily removing the player control to act out a key scene via a pre-rendered cinematic is itself a form of breaking immersion as the player is more aware of their lack of control in the circumstances.
While The Last of Us is guilty of this on occasion, they achieve a lot of increased immersion through the design of the game in order to compliment the engagement in the story. The in-game display is fittingly minimal to suit the themes of scarcity, as well as be unobtrusive to the point of being unnoticed until required by the player. Players are left to determine their own path to follow in most situations, with clever Level Design subtly leading the player rather than an artificial objective marker floating above an exit. When attempting to sneak around the player avatar will instinctively move into cover rather than requiring the player to press a button to snap in or out, thus creating an intuitive and natural interaction.
For all its masterful techniques of maintaining immersion in its world, the issue in linear story based games such as this remains that the player will ultimately have the capability to disrupt their engagement in the scene. It may or may not be intentional, but it is this player choice that is integral to feeling they are part of the world at that moment. Without it, the player may as well be watching a non-interactive medium such as TV or film where the story plays out before them.
Of course, the issue is negated somewhat in more open gameplay that can rely on emergent story developments and interactions influenced by the player’s actions. The problem then becomes guaranteeing an interesting narrative for the player to be part of so that they feel compelled to continue further. However, in many ways the strain this can create on writers and developers could have a greater negative effect on the overall quality of a game that sets its scope too wide.
As the gaming industry looks to evolve it is encouraging to consider that the issues of storytelling are becoming more complex and challenging within the medium. More products are aiming to convey a message or have an engrossing narrative to compliment the interaction of playing a game. In some ways it appears that these products are progressing beyond the oft perceived immaturity of games and should possibly be considered as interactive entertainment instead.
Although a gulf between the storytelling and interaction aspect of such entertainment still exists, it should hopefully encourage more developers to follow in Naughty Dog’s footsteps to deliver an even greater synergy of content. With more mature approaches and themes to interactive storytelling becoming increasingly prominent it will hopefully lead to more widespread success, respect and enjoyment within the medium for developers and consumers alike.
Just last week I wrote a post in the wake of Microsoft’s arguably lack lustre performance at this year’s E3 event wondering if the company had broader plans for the future of their new console and controversial policies. Now, with the surprising news of a complete u-turn on these their used game and online connectivity plans following public outcry, it seems we have an answer.
Don Mattrick’s written statement released shortly after the news broke presents a picture of solidarity and an insistence that this change was a result of the company wishing to deliver to its loyal customer base. Whatever Microsoft’s reasoning, this decision is sure to have an impact on all parties concerned with the future of the Xbox One, and not all of it may be positive.
As the news of Microsoft’s u-turn broke the internet was awash with self-congratulatory tweets and enthusiastic posts from those who had campaigned against the policies. Such an outpouring of strong opinion on social media had seemingly achieved the impossible and convinced a massive company to bend to the will of its consumers, so it was no surprise that the reverse decision was met with equal expression.
With restrictions on used games removed from the system, consumers felt that they were once again in control of their entertainment in a manner with which they were accustomed. But perhaps they will be missing out? What Microsoft was proposing was a new method for handling trade-ins that would have still allowed players to exchange used games for newer titles, though admittedly with some limiting caveats. However, what this also suggested was the possibility of a digital marketplace for instant purchasing and delivery of new entertainment, effectively mirroring the success of Valve’s Steam platform on home consoles. This could have presented a whole host of new benefits for consumers such as discounted prices, holiday sales bundles and instant gift purchasing and sharing.
With the reduction of disc-based products and the subsequent used game trade-ins, game stores were looking at potentially lean times until Microsoft’s announcement. It’s quite telling that following the news GameStop’s shares rose by 6% as it became clear that the business could continue with its primary income practice of reselling used games with a large mark-up.
Of late, many stores here in the UK have been struggling financially, with the closure of Gamestation and the down-scaling of Game. This news will likely benefit these ailing stores and their employees, but the effects on consumers may be less positive. With these stores able to continue their used-game practices, consumers may find that they are receiving less value for a trade-in than that of what may have been offered on Microsoft’s proposed trade service.
With the anticipated structure of used games trading on the Xbox One, developers and publishers looked set to receive a more adequate slice of the pie from such transactions with external stores practically removed from the process. Now that the decision has been overruled they may have to revisit existing methods in an attempt to limit used game trade-ins such as the much maligned Online Pass system.
Another factor of this announcement is the effect it could potentially have on teams currently producing content for the next-gen hardware. Turn 10, the Microsoft studio responsible for the Forza series presented their latest title at E3 and outlined a number of features which suggested a necessity for regular online connectivity such as the ‘Drivatar’. This sudden policy reversal could have damaging repercussions on the studio’s efforts if they have been working under the assumption that players would always be connected whilst on Xbox One. Now they may have to consider what this means for their designed systems and how to provide a game for players both on and offline.
With this announcement, Microsoft has seemingly placated a lot of their fans who were worried about the contentious policies they had announced. However, in some cases the damage may have already been done, with some consumers losing faith or trust in the company, wary of such policies being reinstated as suddenly as they were removed.
The company may have a new found respect from some consumers for admitting their mistake and trying to rectify the problem rather than dismissing the concerns of its market. Equally though, they may have lost respect for collapsing so readily under public pressure and not sticking to their convictions in an attempt to innovate their platform with new services.
What this has achieved is a brief respite for Microsoft which was required following the backlash from E3. The timing of the announcement also coincided with the recent firmware issues plaguing Sony’s PS3 which was an unlikely coincidence. There are still some factors about the new hardware that remain to be addressed such as the necessity for the Kinect and the higher product price when compared to the PS4. For now though, Microsoft has pulled itself up off the canvas and is looking to get back into the fight.
In the short term it could be said that consumers look to benefit from this decision more than the other parties concerned, although looking ahead to the future it is unclear if this will continue to be the case. Microsoft were attempting to introduce new practices and services that may have led to greater benefits to the company, developers and most importantly, the consumers.
Perhaps in the long run we have all lost out as the future innovation of home console entertainment has been stilted due to poor communication and a lack of public acceptance. If so, then we are all partly responsible for this turn of events, and we all must now live with the consequences moving forward, for better or worse. The true potential of Microsoft’s policies will unfortunately go undiscovered until the gaming public is more open to these or new concepts, or a company is willing to attempt to revolutionise the format once again.
This year’s E3 event in Los Angeles saw Microsoft and Sony competing for the attention of millions of video game fans with a shiny new line up of exclusive game announcements and platform information. Coming into E3 it was clear that Microsoft had a lot more at stake after a negative reaction to the Xbox One unveiling 3 weeks ago due to used game restrictions and a perceived lack of focus on games. Once at E3 it was apparent to most people watching the Sony press conference that Microsoft was still lagging behind in a contest to impress potential buyers in hopes of supporting their new hardware.
In the fallout of the conferences, social media was in strong voice supporting the PS4 due to its open platform practices, lower price, and indie support. Online polls added to the Sony fanfares as voters deemed them to be overwhelmingly more favourable than Microsoft who scored as low as 9% in some cases.
What seems to have added to Microsoft’s woes in the face of such public disapproval is the communication regarding key issues raised by the primary market and press alike. Don Mattrick’s response to concerns regarding Xbox One’s online connectivity requirements felt cold and insulting when he suggested consumers can use an Xbox 360 instead. Throughout recent interviews and growing developments Microsoft representatives have provided conflicting messages and appeared defiant in spite of the negative reactions from the core market it now seems to be alienating.
In addition, the new technical features unveiled have been poorly demonstrated, meaning the true gaming potential of these innovations is not very apparent. Perhaps this is due to a desire to avoid further separation of the core gamer market with additional TV focused examples, or simply because they do not fully understand the potential themselves.
What could be construed as steadfast arrogance on Microsoft’s behalf may just be a reluctance to admit that they have pitched their new product poorly. Alternatively, there may be an element of truth to this perception given the company’s success in the current generation possibly providing an inflated sense of security.
Taking to the stage at E3, Microsoft presented some impressive and desirable Xbox One exclusive titles such as Respawn Entertainment’s Titanfall. However, given the negative feelings towards the platform many may see this as a hostage like situation where Microsoft is attempting to withhold popular content from players in an attempt to present a necessity to buy their product.
The Xbox One unveiling event was intended for a new demographic of consumers that could potentially provide an increased revenue which will always be a top business priority, though not usually at the risk of losing existing customers. This perceived shift in focus will be the result of deep analysis into the market behaviours and usage statistics to create informed predictions of where the company’s future efforts are best invested. According to Microsoft, that future looks to be one that is no longer solely based around a games platform but rather an interactive entertainment hub for the home.
What Microsoft is proposing is causing a huge riptide of ill will towards the company, but they likely believe that they have accumulated enough good will in the past that they can weather this rough transition period whilst securing new potential customers in the process. Right now, Sony is capitalising on this critical period by riding the crest of the wave and telling everyone exactly what they want to hear in the current battle of hearts and minds.
Looking to the future as Microsoft inevitably are, it is not hard to consider that a lot of the contentious features of this new hardware will become more commonplace and possibly even accepted. If, or even when, that day comes, Microsoft will already have the systems and infrastructure in place to assure dominance of the market to the point of possible monopolisation.
Radical change can often be met with equally radical negativity of the unfamiliar. In 2003 a new service was launched to provide game updates and improved anti-cheat protection to online gaming. Shortly afterwards the highly anticipated game Half-Life 2 was released which required authentication through this service in order to play. The platform was fraught with issues on launch and the target of much public outcry regarding a necessary online connection and perceivably invasive anti-piracy systems. Nowadays the platform, commonly known as Steam, is seen as the darling of PC gaming from a company that can do no wrong. Perhaps Microsoft will be hoping to emulate the success of Valve as they too try and revolutionise their own entertainment platform for the future.
In my previous post I looked at one of my favourite games in a different light to analyse what I considered to be 5 of its less appealing elements. Now, continuing that theme, I am looking at 5 good qualities in an otherwise disappointing game. This is the Best of Jurassic Park: Trespasser.
Originally intended to coincide with the release of The Lost World: Jurassic Park movie in 1997, Trespasser was everything a dinosaur loving youngster like me could want in a new FPS game. Unfortunately, the game was a victim of its own grand ideas and imposed release date, leading to most features being cut or unfinished. What was finally released in 1998 was a broken, bland experience that earned it the title “Worst PC Game of the Year” from Gamespot. So, with that in mind, here is what I rate as the 5 best elements of Jurassic Park: Trespasser.
Trespasser was one of the first games of its kind to incorporate a physics engine that allowed objects to react with one another in a realistic fashion. This was clearly evident when playing as most of the limited gameplay involved stacking or toppling piles of boxes to pass obstacles or obtain items. Ignoring some issues with object mass and friction, these physics provided entirely new possibilities for environment manipulation that were very impressive at the time. It would be 6 years before such a seemingly simple feature would be implemented again with any great success in Half-Life 2.
Trespasser was also the first game to utilise Ragdoll Physics to simulate realistic death behaviours through procedurally generated animations. Ragdolls are now a fairly common place feature in games looking to convey a realistic and immersive world to the player, but it might have been a different story without Trespasser.
To compliment the impressive new physics system in the game, the developers came up with an alternative control scheme intended to provide players with a full range of control to manipulate the environment. The intention was to simulate the range of movement available in the player character’s arms and hands in game to provide the ability to interact with the world and items in a realistic manner.
In some puzzle elements this required the player to input a key-code on a numerical pad in-game by directing the player character’s pointing index finger. Unfortunately, due to the project cuts the controls were famously unfinished and the result was only one controllable arm that provided little finesse and added frustration. It did provide a new perspective of control to the FPS genre that sadly hasn’t been tried again since.
On the whole, the audio for Trespasser was hit and miss. The music was fairly non-existent and the ambient sound effects added little to the sensation of wandering through an isolated tropical island. The dinosaur sound effects failed to strike any fear or awe as they reacted to the player and lacked variety.
Minnie Driver was drafted in to voice the player character Anne, but delivers a flat lacklustre performance considering she is supposed to be marooned on an island inhabited with said dinosaurs. Thankfully, Richard Attenborough is on hand to reprise his role as Richard Hammond from the film and provides diary monologues that offer some additional insight into the world of Jurassic Park. Although a little random at times, these voice over segments are perhaps one of the few compelling narrative strands in the game that helped dispel the tedium for a few brief moments.
Continuing from the game audio, the weapon sound effects were also quite impressive. Shotguns in particular provided a satisfying blast when fired that could give the Doom shotgun a run for its money in the bang-for-buck stakes.
In addition, there was a good selection of various real world weapons that were all modelled accurately and with an attention to detail sadly unmatched in many other aspects of the game. A particular favourite weapon of mine available in the game was the SPAS-12 shotgun as used by Muldoon in Jurassic Park.
The environment art and design in Trespasser was quite an ambitious undertaking for a 3D FPS game at the time. Clearly the intention was to offer the player the opportunity to explore the Site B location from the movies; a massive island of dense jungle and volcanic rock. The team behind Trespasser managed to produce an imposingly large landmass for the game, although, what the world had in scale, it lacked in characteristics or plant life.
Despite the rather barren environment, the world still exhibited some inspiring sights thanks to the massive draw distance the developers managed to obtain with their engine. These were some of the largest environments available at the time which utilised a relatively new technique of presenting distant objects with lower quality versions known as imposters. This technique is widely used in most games now to render vast detailed environments without affecting performance.
Looking back on Trespasser, it is evident that there exists a bold and ambitious title at the heart of this game that was sadly unable to deliver. From this shipwreck of a game the driftwood has been salvaged and repurposed into better products that can be seen in many of the great games of today. Trespasser’s unsavoury accolades and “Worst Game” awards shine out like a beacon, warning off any other developers from crashing on the same rocks that marooned this project. Given the chance though, I think the right team could take the grand intentions of Trespasser and produce a truly great game that ‘spares no expense’.
A colleague asked me an interesting question recently that led me to think more critically about some of my most cherished gaming memories. With this in mind, I decided to write about what I consider to be some of the worst elements of some of my favourite games.
To start off, I’m revisiting my teenage memories of creating thrilling rides and entertaining guests in my own amusement parks in Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 (RCT2). I still consider this a fantastic game that offers timeless enjoyment as well as a style and experience that I can happily return to again and again. However, the warm embrace of nostalgia does not excuse some flaws and shortfalls of this eagerly awaited sequel.
From the outset RCT2 had some impressive boots to fill. Chris Sawyer’s first Rollercoaster Tycoon released in 1999 and the two following expansion packs set the standard for amusement park ownership simulation. When this sequel was finally released 3 years later fans of the game expected fixes for many of the problems of the first game. Sadly, RCT2 did not deliver much in the way of innovation, with the core game play and visuals unchanged save for a small amount of improvements and similarly functional additions. This is an evident statement when looking down the rest of this list as the following criticisms could be said for the first RCT as well.
A feature so commonly associated with business and simulation games that was sorely missing from RCT2. Sure, you can pause time but you are denied the ability to construct a new scream machine whilst doing so. I can excuse this for the most part as it would personally feel like cheating. What I can’t excuse is the lack of ability to speed up time when I’ve completed my objectives by the end of Year 1 and I now have to wait 2 game years to complete the scenario.
The existing scenarios in RCT2 often presented some interesting and unique locations to try to create a successful park, but there was always an underlying set objective to the situation that influenced your decision making. The inclusion of a Sandbox mode would have allowed players to freely explore the wealth of options and creative possibilities available. Thankfully a Scenario Editor was introduced which could be used to create a form of sandbox mode, although the amount of available rides and options was unfortunately limited.
Despite the addition of a lot of new scenery and theme objects, the methods for placing and manipulating them remained largely unchanged. When creating complex custom structures or editing terrain it was easy to accidently affect the wrong object or location leading to floating items or holes in the landscape. Most of these problems were caused by the limited isometric view imposed on the player. Camera issues aside, creating believable and impressive structures and themed areas was often a laborious process that required a bit of patience and a lot of skill.
At the heart of RCT2 lies the ability to create your own rollercoaster masterpieces. Some players reportedly struggled with the construction interface which could be unintuitive with some coaster designs but I believe the menu conveyed a host of complex options in an adequate format. My problem during construction was struggling to create a coaster that would fail to maintain speed to complete the big set piece loop I had installed, or worse, would send riders through corkscrews at death inducing speeds. I always wanted a way to test my designs whilst constructing in order to get a sense of speed and avoid catastrophe when forced to test only when the entire coaster was complete. RCT3 would later introduce this feature but until then I had to rely on careful experimentation and experience to try and guess the successfulness of my creations, making this core component a risky venture during scenario play.
Despite these issues, Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 still holds a special place in my gaming memories. Every time I visit an amusement park the sights and sounds spark a desire to replay this game and create my own attractions and rides as soon as I get back home. This series has offered a brilliant simulation platform that provides a great deal of control and creative freedom to construct the park of your dreams. It may require some patience as well as trial and error, but aren’t those principles at the core of all business simulations?
I plan to write some alternative articles looking at the best elements of some otherwise disappointing games so please check back for those in the near future. Coming soon….Best of: Trespasser.
As the number of games incorporating microtransactions into their design fabric has increased, so has the outcry from some consumers concerned about additional charges and so called ‘pay-to-win’ schemes. The lines between premium and freemium titles are becoming blurred, leading many gamers and reviewers to express increasingly negative responses to some of the methods used by big publishers to offer added desirable content to their games.
In comparison, it seems the smaller development teams of the mobile market are experiencing a more accepted opinion of the freemium approach to monetise their products. Typically, users can download a free limited version of a game or app with an option to pay a small fee to unlock the full range of features if they wish. An obvious case for the differing opinions between the inclusion of microtransactions in premium and freemium content is likely to be linked to the price of entry and associated budgets for each project. Adding a £3 charge on top of a £40 new release just to purchase a different texture appearance for your avatar may leave some players feeling cheated.
So if premium titles plan to continue their efforts to include microtransactions in new releases, is there a more acceptable method that could be utilised to keep both consumers and publishers happy? Perhaps the answer lies with a feature mentioned at the Playstation 4 announcement presentation that took place in February this year. CEO David Perry suggested on stage that his Gaikai technology would allow users to start playing any game with the press of a button within the online store. Differing from the standard demo and lite versions already available to consumers, the game would be unrestricted and would not require any purchase before playing.
Gaikai CEO David Perry hinted of instant free access to new games during the PS4 announcement at the Sony conference.
Ignoring the technological, business and infrastructure demands imposed if such a feature were to be a widespread reality, there is a plausible alternative to the premium microtransaction issue within this concept. If players can suddenly have access to any available game on the market for free, publishers may have to incorporate even more microtransactions to make up for the potential loss of the high price of entry. However, it will either take a lot of small desirable content to compensate this, or worse, increased price transactions that suddenly aren’t so ‘micro’.
What if the alternative to such a reality was to adopt an episodic format for content distribution and monetisation? In such a scenario, episode 1 of a title would be the free download available on the online store, providing consumers with a demonstration of the game to hopefully whet their appetites for more. Each subsequent episode would become available for a fraction of the price of a full retail release. Suddenly, the price of entry on all titles has been reduced, providing consumers with more control over their spending, as well as removing the perceived risk of spending large amounts on a new unknown title. This could lead to more players experimenting with new games and genres, as well as potentially reducing the necessity to purchase pre-owned products to save money.
These positives would also benefit the development and publishing teams with an increased potential market for their content, though this also presents them with new challenges. If the high price of entry is removed on the product then encouraging players to purchase all episodes is necessary to compensate. This could lead to teams consolidating project budgets in order to front load their games with the ‘juicy’ content which is likely to receive more visibility. The onus then becomes on the developers to ensure that the high watermark of the beginning content is maintained throughout the product to increase player retention. To put a positive spin on it, this may lead to a new breed of incredible and compelling titles that somehow manage to improve upon each episode, guaranteeing players want to spend a little more to continue their adventure.
In addition, publishers could provide consumers with an option to purchase all episodes for one up-front price much in the same way that products are currently retailed. The recent success of Telltale Games Walking Dead series is perhaps a small indication of what can be achieved with strong episodic content that is sold individually or as a whole.
Telltale Games Walking Dead series demonstrated the potential of strong episodic content.
Attempting to view the direction that premium and freemium monetisation models are heading amidst the blurry lines they travel is an ever increasingly difficult task. What may appease one demographic is likely to result in negative connotations for the other. The introduction of new hardware and services may provide options and control to consumers, but will also require an adjustment of production techniques and creative endeavours on behalf of development teams. Whatever the resulting transition, the reliance on microtransactions and free-to-play models is likely to provide contention between both parties until that unknown middle ground is finally reached. Let’s just hope that the price both parties have to pay to reach that ground is mutually beneficial.
I have optimised a number of performance issues that should now see the page load times improved on slower connections. Also, the portfolio pages now support links to high resolution 1080p screen captures for improved viewing pleasure.
Roll out the welcome mat, sound the fanfare and brace yourselves, a fresh experience has arrived in the form of my brand spanking new website!
Okay, settle down, it’s not quite finished yet but it is already full of lovely goodness for you to peruse and absorb. First things first, there is my Portfolio collection which contains a host of completed and ongoing projects that I am proud to exhibit. I plan to expand my portfolio with new exciting ideas and projects in the near future so please check back here often.
Secondly, there is the Blog, which, if you’re reading this then you have already found. It is here that I intend to communicate my thoughts primarily regarding the current goings on in the games industry, where I hope I can present an interesting viewpoint from within. I also have plans for a number of small features that I will publish regularly, as well as presenting updates on my latest independent development projects and ideas.
So this is where it starts for the site and for myself, I hope to have you along for the journey.