Jeff On Games

I gave a talk at Becker last night on tools in the game industry, which I called "Tools of the Trade." The talk and its slides are available here, and the entire talk should be in the slide notes. Generally, I'm pretty happy with the talk itself, though if I had to give it again there are a few things I would change, including removing some of the LOLCats. In addition, I think some of the points that I make about the problems with debugging tools actually applies to all tools, but in an attempt to split the talk into three nice sections, I ended up muddling things up a bit.

What I really hope is that the students actually got something from the talk. I'm afraid some of it may have actually gone over their heads, and portions of the talk may need simplification or better explanation. Hopefully they did get something out of it (and if any Becker students have decided to read my blog, I'd love to hear your thoughts!)

I got confirmation today that my proposed talk(s) for GDC have been passed on this year. In this case, I was hoping to get a roundtable on build process into the mix, and I find it really unfortunate that they passed on it. Generally, the "Technical Issues in Tools Development" roundtable (that John does an excellent job moderating every year) spends half of its time talking about build process best practices, which means neither build process nor technical issues in tools development actually get the time they deserve. I talked to John about this, and he believed it was a good idea to get both roundtables more focused. That said, he was pretty certain I didn't have chance of getting it accepted (and honestly, I was pretty sure he was right).

What I find most disappointing is why such a round table was rejected. These are the criteria sited by the selection committee:

• Your expertise in the subject matter proposed. They have no way of knowing my experience with build systems, as they only ask what positions I've held at various game companies. They know I was an Associate Programmer at Bethesda and Lead Architect at Orbus. That doesn't show them that I designed (or helped design) the build systems at both companies, so in reality, this wasn't and couldn't have been a reason for rejection.
• The number of years you've been in the industry. Going on 4 years now. I guess seems longer than it is. Really though, does this affect my ability to lead a discussion on build process?
• Game credits and/or projects you've worked on. Sure, the build system for Aleph Metrics isn't amazing (doesn't have to deal with assets), but I ran in to any number of problems optimizing the assets for Obivion and Fallout 3 (though, to be honest, I'm not sure how much of my asset optimization code is still in Fallout 3). Again, though, there's no way for them to know what I actually did at Bethesda (they didn't ask) so really they're just looking for name recognition of projects. Would think those two would be pretty high up there.
• Past speaking history; if previously spoken at GDC your evaluation scores are taken into account very seriously. I spoke at GDC once, sort-of. It was a student action roundtable, which kinda died before it got off the ground. That's fine. Whatever. But since then I've spoken at any number of other schools and events, and I've never had a complaint, and quite a few compliments. I mean, I'd love to talk at GDC if they'd give me a chance.
• The relevancy of your session proposal to seasoned game developers, why is it interesting? How is it important to game development? What will game developers get out of the session? How can the selection committee think this wasn't important or interesting? Technical Issues in Tools Development is ALWAYS full and more than HALF of the time is dedicated to this and we NEVER come out with clear answers or any best practices because the time isn't actually there to talk about it. Would having an extra half hour help? I like to think so.
• How well you addressed any of the topics outlined in the submission guidelines. This, of course, could have been the key. Maybe I'm not so good at selling myself?

Every year, I just get more and more frustrated with submission process. There's little to no feedback as to why a talk was rejected and, while I can see it with some (any time I propose a game design talk, for example), some really good submissions, like this one seem to get thrown out without actual explanation. I think the only way I'll be okay with this rejection is if another, more experienced developer, proposed the same talk.

What about everyone else? Have people heard? Are you just as frustrated as I am?

This weekend, I was fortunate enough to attend (and present at) Boston Gameloop. I was fortunate enough, partially, because it was co-organized by my boss, but that's beside the point. I presented two sessions, one on distributed version control (which I gave twice), and the other was a co-talk with me and IF luminary Andrew Plotkin about agency / complicity in games. I'm hoping someone took notes at that talk because I think it was pretty awesome, and being able to basically have a public discussion about agency / complicity with Andrew was pretty awesome. In addition to presenting, I was able to attend talks on implied ethics in game rules, see some demos / a presentation on dynamic animation of virtual actors, and spend a little bit of time in a round table on Scrum, all of which was awesome.

So all in all GameLoop was definitely a great experience, and props to both Darius and Scott who organized the whole thing. I'm looking forward to the conference occurring again next year!

Hot on the heels of me praising the Xbox Live Community Marketplace comes this opinion piece on Gamasutra that's actually fairly angry at Microsoft's practices in this regard. I definitely see his problems with the promotion thing, but almost everyone did. That was the single most asked question at GameFest, so I'm sure you'll see a change in policy about it before the fall launch, or probably very shortly after. The exchange rate issue is… interesting… to say the least, but that said, I can see how it's very difficult for Microsoft to track how points were purchased and in what country. I'm sure it hurts foreign developers a lot more than it hurts Americans though.

So, although I think a few of Ron's complaints are understandable, I think he's missing one key component of the XBLCM vision: lowering the barrier for entry so that anyone can make games for a console. As I pointed out in my last post, this is the first time any console manufacturer has ever done this, so, obviously, they may get a few things wrong. The comparisons to WiiWare / PSN I think were completely misplaced here, since hobbyists can't actually develop for those platforms without hacking around the systems. Even then, both Nintendo and Sony have tried to stop such hacks, effectively attempting to close off their console as much as possible.

So I think Microsoft took a very brave step in the right direction. Not only that, but I think it's WAY more than what most hobbyist / community game creators were expecting. To have their games "published" on an actual console, with potential for pretty large returns. I can understand the backlash from indies, since once you have a budget you can get shafted from the XBLA point of view, and price caps, royalty and exchange rates may hurt your actual prospects as a developer, but, honestly, look at this for what it is: a very positive move for creating a new caste of developer who have no budget, no team, and a desire to see their own game on a console, and maybe make some money while they're at it.

If you have problems with the rest of the system (which you should), that's something between you and the XBLA team. I feel pretty good about XBLCM.

So, if you haven't heard, Microsoft announced at GameFest that they'd be deploying a new community market place this fall on the Xbox 360, and that developers will be able to keep (up to) 70% of the revenue generated from games on the community marketplace. While not unexpected, this is pretty huge news.

Before getting on to commentary, I'd like to quickly point out how revolutionary this whole set up is. This is the first time in my knowledge that a major console company has actively encouraged (or even allowed) development on a retail console at any price (Sony had a version of the PSOne you could develop for, but it was not a retail kit). In addition, this is certainly the first time that any console manufacturer has encouraged a community in which to share those games (the Creators Club) and even more importantly, this is the first time a console manufacturer has created a marketplace where anyone can download created games and anyone can make money off of those games. Even with the fact that you are limited to a .NET sandbox, this is pretty huge, and I'm pretty excited about it.

That said, when Community Arcade was announced, and later when they announced Community Marketplace, I was nervous, though I couldn't figure out why. It struck me when I was at a game store over the weekend. There are a lot of freaking games out there now. A ton. And, honestly, 90% of them aren't any good. There are also a lot of XBLA games, and, honestly, about 90% of them aren't any good. With Community Arcade/Community Marketplace, you can be sure 99% of games on there won't be any good. It makes it really hard and frequently frustrating attempting to find those hidden gems that really make it all worth it. Certainly, community reviews, Metacritic, and similar sites help find games, but what do you do for those games that are fringe (and therefore generally ignored or given low Metacritic and community scores), but awesome? Certainly the viral aspects that Microsoft is putting in (send this to a friend and, hopefully, a rating system) will help, but even then many fringe games get overlooked because there's just too much else coming out right at the same time. I just hope that the game industry isn't a victim of its own success, having so much content that none of it makes any real money.

Regardless, I'm not sure it's an actual issue. You can be sure I'm already working on XNA prototype games. I'm not going to miss this opportunity.

Hot on the heals of the web release of my Game Career Guide article on game engines, the paper / published version is now out, though the whole thing is available online for free. I'm almost always really happy with the print version of Game Career Guide. It has some great articles to help people who want to know more about breaking in to the game industry. It's just another one of those resources I wish I'd had when I was in high school / college. It also may have helped me price myself property (in terms of salary) both when I graduated and when I entered the game industry, but that's neither here nor there.

On a side note, I have to remember to put my blog in my bio for Game Career Guide from now on. I frequently get email from people asking questions about the article and almost as frequently I direct them to articles on my blog. I'm just no good at this self promotion thing.

I'm not one to disagree with Joel, but I actually think I will disagree (sort-of) with this post.

Personally, I have no problem with disabling menu items (graying them out), and I have no problem with showing / hiding items in context sensitive areas of your UI (be they right click menus or elsewhere). I think disabled items give a quick indication of what you can and can't do given your location current context. How horrible would it be to think you're inside a table and click something to format it, only to get an error saying "You can't do that because you're not in a table," then you click OK, then you click in the table, then you go back to your menu. That extra error box plus OK click can get real annoying real fast, whereas grey text tells you quickly that you're in the wrong place. Hiding items is fine too, so long as you're hiding the items in areas the user understand are context sensitive. Right click is always assumed to be context sensitive, but properties windows, and certain toolbars could benefit significantly from some amount of context sensitivity.

I will say, though, that I absolutely agree that a disabled menu item should always be able to display a descriptive reason for why its disabled. In addition, hidden items should only be hidden from areas that are known to be context sensitive. If an item is hidden, a user should still be able to find it in the menu, find that it's disabled, and get a reason why. I think a tool-tip or similar is sufficient for when you see the grayed out item but have no idea why it's disabled, but of course in the desktop application world support for that can be fairly limited (last I checked) which is why almost no companies do it, which is what is irking Joel (I think).

So in conclusion, hide and disable all you want because I think even the general user can work faster seeing disabled menu items and hiding unnecessary commands. Just be sure that when you hide or disable, the user can find out quickly why you've hidden or disabled the item. That assertion's nothing new, though. Chris Crawford called for that in his self-published Understanding Interactivity some 8 years ago.

So, I'm generally disappointed in the state of game journalism and game criticism, but I won't talk about that too much today. It's been harped on by people far more eloquent than me and I don't think it needs to be reiterated. However, last night I got a copy of this month's Game Informer (the one with inFAMOUS on the cover) and I have to say I'm really, really disappointed in one of their articles, one that could have been used to actually provide critical insight into games that both gamers and game developers put up on a pedestal for whatever reason. The article is their Second Annual Sacred Cow Barbecue.

Now, normally, I'd be all for this, but literally, here's their list of Sacred Cows and a basic summary of their complaints about each game:

• Chrono Trigger: The plot is cliché and unbelievable. To quote the article: "Chrono Trigger proves that RPG dorks will buy literally anything, just as long as it's Japanese and doesn't make a lick of sense."
• GoldenEye 007: The graphics suck and the controls are bad (compared to current dual analog controls).
• Gran Turismo (series): It's too realistic. They also didn't like the career mode and lack of online play.
• ESPN NFL 2k5: It's put on a pedestal only because EA stole the rights to all NFL games. It's no better than Madden.
• Half-Life (series): The plot sucks and Gordon Freeman isn't an interesting character. To quote the article: "For a series that's been praised for its great storytelling we sure as hell can't make head or tails of this convoluted collection of sci-fi drivel." Also, no online pay "that's not Counter-Strike or an addon pack," and a one line complaint about physics puzzles.
• Super Smash Bros. (series): All of the game's characters are Nintendo has-beens. To quote the article: "… there are [only] a few characters … that have sold a game in the last 20 years". Also, the game doesn't necessary require skill to win.
• Rez: It's a standard rails shooter with a derivative visual style (of Batlezone and Tron according to GI), derivative gameplay (of other rail shooters) and derivative soundtrack of "generic techno music that even superstar trance hacks like DJ Tiesto and Paul Oakenfold would be embarrassed to spin."

Okay, as a challenge, I'd like my readers to find the actual design flaws that GI points out in any of these games.

Go ahead I'll wait.

That's the thing, GI fails (with the exception of possibly its complaints about ESPN NFL 2k5) to point out any actual design flaws in any of the games it attempts to knock off its high horse, even though every single one of these games has design flaws that can easily suggest that it is over-rated in one way or another. Faulting Gran Turismo for being too realistic or faulting Super Smash Bros for (essentially) implementing rubber-banding mechanics is like faulting comedies for being funny and tragedies for being sad. Faulting Golden Eye for looking like crap compared to modern games or for its bad control scheme compared to the dual analog sticks is like faulting "It's a Wonderful Life" for using old styles of directing and cutting, or faulting pre-Citizen Kane movies for not using post-Citizen Kane conventions. It misses the point of why the game is good in the first place.

If you want to write an article like this, and if you want to actually be taken seriously as a game critic, maybe you should actually think critically about the game instead of finding very small quips that don't actually affect the game in any reasonable way. Chrono Trigger is not considered amazing because of its plot, but because of the way the plot unfolds, the open ended section at the end of the game, and the amount of freedom you're given within the linear plot. Half-Life, similarly, isn't necessarily considered amazing for its story, but for how that story is presented, and how the designers worked around the fact that your character shouldn't talk (as that would break immersion).

And don't even get me started about their complaints about Rez. Faulting each individual component of that game is like faulting a hot fudge sundae because hot fudge and ice cream aren't actually interesting on their own.

Honestly, I feel like this article was simply meant as flame bait, and I'm almost sorry I felt the need to fan the flames. That said, GI is (according to their cover) "The World's #1 Computer & Video Game Magazine" and I wish that I could at least expect that magazine to publish something a little more insightful than what you can get on their forums every day, but I guess that's asking too much.

Though not directly in responce to Randy (and Brenda I guess), someone has made a very short Game Maker game where "your choices have consequences."  (Note: do not read the thread first.  Read it after.)  This is a very interesting "game," and I highly recommend you take the 10 minutes out of your day to give it a shot.  Found via TIGSource (where I find most of the new interesting games I get to play).

Let me start by immediately apologizing to Brian Nathanson. He's about to get the brunt of my anger for something I've been dealing with for some time now, and I apologize that he just happened to publish an article that I so strongly disagree with right as I was thinking I needed to write another post on game education and its role in breaking in to the game industry.

I am, in some respects, an industry "insider." I've worked at one game studio and one game middleware startup. I've gone through crunch on a triple A title, I've helped ship patches and expansions on said title, and I was around for the pre-production of another triple A title due out soon. But, I only graduated from James Madison a scant 4 years ago (almost to the day, wow), so I feel I still have that connection to what it is like to be trying to break in. In another few years, I'll probably be too far removed to give this same advice, but for now I feel like I still know enough about what it's like that I can make some educated comments. Unfortunately, these comments are going to be directed at Brian, since he's publicly come out to talk about his experiences at a game school. Again, I'm sorry Brian.

First I want to enumerate what Brian did wrong, though some of this is going to be speculation from talking to other people that have had the same problems. First, Brian went to a school with a game program, probably without visiting the school, without knowing its teaching methodologies, it's success rate, and probably only because it offered a game development program. This is a mistake. Do your research on a school. If you haven't read my GCG article on the subject, please do. What you will learn is that there are a lot of things that make a school good or bad for any given student looking to go into game development, and the existence or non-existence of a game development program is not one of them. If Brian had visited his school before hand, he probably would have noticed that there are very few game companies in Arizona (comparatively) which means very few opportunities outside of the classroom, and that the school's staff was (probably) made up of mostly educators that were re-tasked into the game development program when they heard that game development programs were the next big thing. That would have set off warning bells saying this was probably not a place he wanted to go to school. But hey, game development degree means you'll work in the game industry right?

Which brings me to Brian's second mistake. He assumed that having a game development degree would entitle him to a position at a game development company. Because of this, he didn't work on networking and he didn't put the extra effort he needed into his portfolio (which he admits is not very competitive). I've actually heard this same "rant" from other people as well, at many different schools. They feel that a game degree somehow entitles them to a position at a game company, to which I say you are deluding yourself. Regardless of where you go and what you study, you're going to have to put work into networking and you're going to have to put work into being as good as you can be in your particular field. It's a supply and demand issue. There's a huge supply of people that want to be in the industry, and a fixed demand, partially determined by the amount of money that is flowing into it at any given time.

Which actually brings me to the crux of what I hate about this article. It's encased in these two quotes from Brian. First:

I believe the industry needs to allow for outside and inexperienced people to reinvigorate the game development process. I believe that those who have a shipped title on their resumes, while talented and dedicated, perhaps are closer to burning out than an individual out to make his or her mark…. Individuals with base skill sets and true passion are ready and waiting to be given a chance to shine. These talented and passionate people bring fresh new energy and commitment into an industry that seems to always be juggling profitability with volatility. New ideas, new game mechanics, and new appeal could be created by those who just want to make a game they would like to play. Smaller, more tightly focused, and perhaps less expensive games could be the result if the industry allowed more inexperienced developers to work while growing their skill sets.

I hear this all the time. This is bullshit masquerading as wisdom. Yes, you're right, the industry needs more new people, more fresh ideas, and more companies should take risks on recent graduates. I myself was a risk, and I'm very glad that someone somewhere decided that I was a risk worth taking, hiring me into the game industry after only a year of non-game work. But there are companies out there that hire interns all the time (EA, Bethesda, Harmonix, Ubisoft and LucasArts just to name a few) so there are people out there taking the risk of getting new energy. But this idea that all you need is a base skill set and passion? No. If you had enough passion you'd find a way other than getting a game development degree and you wouldn't be writing this article. In addition, there's nothing stopping you from doing a small, tightly focused game with a few friends on the cheap, but that's not what you want. If it was, you'd be doing it regardless of anything else. What you want is a job at a big game company doing big games, and you're upset they won't hire you straight out of college when you don't have any experience save what your teacher assigned you.  Sorry, but there are people out there in the giant supply of recent graduates that did more, regardless of whether they have a game development degree or not.

It comes down to this: If you really wanted to make games, you'd be making them. Stop giving me the excuse that the guys with the money aren't giving you the time of day. You make something interesting enough, the guys with the money eventually come knocking.

But the last idea here is what I think really misses the mark:

Having more game education schools at more recognizable public universities would attract more people into the field and would go a long way toward getting more women involved in the industry.

Because having a computer science school at basically every major public university got more women interested in computer science? Sorry, this is completely off the mark. There are people that work very hard getting more women (and other minorities too) involved in the hard sciences and in computer game development. The only thing this solution does is make game development degrees more common, which is not something we need to see. Sorry.

In the end, I think Brian's just frustrated with the closed nature of the industry, and I can understand that. But, again, it comes down to supply and demand. Lots of people want to be in the game industry because games are cool.  But not many actually want to really make games, and the distinction is very very key (though we can get into that another time).  For now, though, the only way we can tell the difference between these candidates is by the amount of work they put in to actually being a part of the industry. Regardless of what school you're at do these things (though the good schools will make you do this anyway): Go to GDC. Go to IGDA meetings. Network. Have your own personal projects.  Prototype games small games.  Finish small games.  Do stuff outside of class and show us that you really want to MAKE games.  Show us that you're worth the risk and we'll take it. If you're not going to bother, why should we?

(Final disclaimer: I'm not trying to put down all game schools here.  There are some great ones, and there are some programs I wish were available when I was looking for schools, but honestly, do your research before going anywhere that advertises a game development program.  Most of them really suck.  In addition, I don't know Brian and I've never met him, so I'm potentially putting a lot of words in his mouth.  This is not intentional.  I'm ore using him as a name for lots of other people who have had similar complaints in the past.)