On the mishmash of genres

[Flatfingers]

One of the dangers of revealing game design info well before launch (in some cases, as it's being designed!) is that some people will see only the items on their personal "perfect game" wishlist that aren't being implemented and be disappointed.

So far, though, it seems that most of those who've commented are more amazed at just how much uniqueness is being proposed for this game. Who'd be churlish enough to seriously complain about AVWW when so many great ideas are already possibilities for being implemented?

I got hooked on computer games in 1972. ("Computer Space," Nolan Bushnell's arcade version of Spacewar! for the PDP.) Since then I've played a fair few games, and I'm familiar with many others, but I've never seen anything like A Valley Without Wind as currently described. Consider: a cross between an '80s JRPG and an open-world CRPG from this decade like Fallout 3, but with elements of modern MMORPGs (goal-oriented NPCs, crafting, cooperative play), simulations (settlement building, "civilization level"), and some new ideas as well -- has there ever been anything like this?

I'd say Chris & Co. might be trying to do too much. That's a remarkable set of features to try to integrate, and I've only mentioned a few of them. But having already shipped a couple of games is a strong point in their favor. And from the official comments here, there's obviously a clear vision for what the core game needs to accomplish and a plan for getting there.

So: I'm a believer. I can't wait to try this game for myself, and to hear what others think about this remarkable concept.

[x4000]

The words of confidence are much appreciated, Flatfingers.  Having made a couple of successful genre-bending games, and having failed to make at least one genre-bending game (Alden Ridge just never could mesh its elements), I'm feeling really confident about what we'll be able to deliver. 

Of course, the big risk is that people will have something different in mind than what we actually deliver, because the degree to which we're focusing on each element from each genre you touched on (and some we haven't mentioned yet) may vary from what people expect.  But we're trying to be clear up front about what the design is like -- as much as we can be, given many things are still in work -- and so hopefully that will mitigate that.

To be honest, as Keith and I are putting in more and more of these subsystems, they just feel so natural together that it seems like an obvious combination.  That's how it was for me with AI War, as well -- after a while of being steeped in the game all day every day, the genre mashup stops seeming like a novelty, and it just seems like the sensible way that this game should be designed.  Of course this and that element go together, etc. 

So I remember being really surprised when AI War came out and reviewers talked about what a unique blend of genres it was; I had long-since forgotten by that point.  Reading post mortems of other games, I think that's really common for developers that innovate -- implementation takes long enough that the novelty has worn off by the time release day comes, so the developers wind up with a big case of "this is new to you?  Well, it's old news to me by now."

The way I look at it is this: you can either copy what other people have done, or you can do something new.  This game is not a superset of all the genres you mentioned, any more than AI War is a superset of its genres.  As an RTS game AI War is mostly complete, but it's a very incomplete 4X game if you look at it just as that.  The tower defense aspects are incredibly slim compared to that genre.  And as a grand strategy game it's also incomplete.  But what it does do is take elements from all those genres, and piece them together in a completely new way.

That's more or less the case here, too.  The core genre is action-adventure, like a Zelda game -- in terms of that genre, AVWW is mostly complete as a game.  In terms of an RPG AVWW is fairly lightweight; as a simulation game, it's not exactly hardcore; as a tactics game, it's also not as robust as a lot of games in those genres.  But what it will do, and to some extent does already, is pull our favorite bits out of those other genres, and combine them into an action-RPG in a way that nobody else has ever done.  That leads to an experience that is not a superset of any of those genres, but is a distinct experience all to its own.

I think that any time a new sub-genre is created, that happens.  That same pattern applies to tower defense games as compared to strategy games, kart racers as compared to racing games, arena shooters as compared to the larger FPS genre, and so on.  At the moment, we're actually looking really good on scope and schedule, knock on wood.  Best guess is beta in the last week of July or so, but we'll see -- that's very much a soft date.

[Flatfingers]

Thanks for giving this its own thread (which it needed), and for using that to make the important point that the features I mentioned (and the others) aren't just a collection of bits and bobs copied from existing genres and randomly jammed together -- there's a purpose to each feature.

I tend to see the world (and my own projects) as systems of systems. So I understand what you mean when you talk about "natural" features that seem like an "obvious combination." That's what it's like to think in terms of systems: you consider options for generating a particular result, and when you find the right ones there's an almost audible *CLICK*. Even if no one's tried it before in that way, it feels completely obvious -- it'll just work.

I get the feeling that's happening a lot for you and the group with AVWW. Which, if so, is great news; it implies that the finished game will feel coherent. And if there's anything that makes a game memorable, that's it. A very few games have that feel where everything just fits. The original Portal had it; Minecraft has it... and it's looking like A Valley Without Wind might have it.

Now, all that needs to be done is to implement, test, and refine all these components, individually and all together.

Easy.  

[tootboot]

Anyone tried Terraria yet?  It's basically a sidescrolling Minecraft with Final Fantasy looking graphics.  It was released yesterday and there are currently 22,000 people playing it on Steam.

Terraria seems a little more fleshed out compared to Minecraft despite using 2D graphics, but probably nothing compared to AVWW.

[Invelios]

Anyone tried Terraria yet?  It's basically a sidescrolling Minecraft with Final Fantasy looking graphics.  It was released yesterday and there are currently 22,000 people playing it on Steam.

Terraria seems a little more fleshed out compared to Minecraft despite using 2D graphics, but probably nothing compared to AVWW.

I've been playing Terraria since release. I personally like it a lot. Much better than Minecraft in fact. But that's probably because I've always been bigger on the Exploration/Resource Collecting/Fighting than building. Terraria put a much bigger focus on those elements, and a bit less on the building. There is a lot more stuff in Terraria, like many more types of armor, lots of unique accessories that give you cool abilities, different weapons like sword, bow, shuriken, boomerang, and there seems to be magic (I haven't gotten any magic yet, but I have several units of Mana). There are also a lot more variety in the monsters, and even some bosses! I also like how you can increase your health and mana by finding rare items like those heart rocks or fallen stars, a lot funner than just leveling up by killing lots of monsters. I would recommend Terraria to anyone who liked the concept of Minecraft, but wanted it to have more of a focus of exploration and fighting. I hope reddigit keeps updating it with even more content.

[x4000]

Somehow the forums stopped notifying me about this thread -- sigh.  At any rate, Flatfingers, you said it really well.

I haven't tried Terraria yet, but it certainly sounds like it is popular.  And it looks like just the sort of thing I'd like, too.  But it also looks really distinct from Minecraft, and like the two will evolve in completely different ways.  And thankfully, neither of those is the AVWW way, either.

[tigersfan]

I just picked up Terraria, its been a while (like since I first got AI War, actually) since any game engrossed me this much. It's a lot of fun, and something about procedurally generated worlds really interests me.

[keith.lamothe]

I'm basically in lurker-mode for this forum at least until beta since I'm not really a sort who can easily incorporate feedback-based-on-something-other-than-actual-gameplay-experience, and I'm also trying to focus my time on actual development instead of foruming, but I did want to respond to the initial thoughts on the multi-aspect design (i.e. combination of genres).

Yea, it's pretty ambitious.  But not as complex to develop as it first appears.  While the overall picture looks (and is) more complex than it would have to be if we stuck purely to a single genre, we're brutally simplicity-seeking in the design and implementation of those individual sub-systems and the bits that connect them.

Chris has mentioned that the action-adventure (i.e. quasi-Zelda-like) stuff is the core genre, the full-fledged system.  And that's quite correct.  But really (in my view, dunno if Chris quite thinks of it this way) the underlying world is the real "main dish".  That's the world you explore in the action-adventure, that's the world all these NPCs came from and live in, that's the world where they build these settlements and all their various exploits are performed and contribute to.  That's the world where you both achieve victories that matter to you and experience meaningful (occasionally even devastating) loss.  That's the world that never, ever has to end (in the geographical sense or in the sense of a final win/loss) once you start it.  That's the world where, to a certain extent, you never know what's going to happen next.

So, for some players at least, once they've spent some time playing they may be far more attached to the world than to the specifics of the gameplay.  That action-adventure play will obviously be a lot of fun and should be sufficient for lots of players to enjoy for a multitude of hours, but folks have different tastes and different levels of stamina for playing the same game for long periods of time.  One advantage of the other aspects of the game is that it lets you, in a sense, go play a different game while staying in the same world and continuing to contribute to its ongoing history.  There are many other advantages that will become evident later

Have you played Space Rangers 2?  That's a wonderful example of a game incorporating a few different genres in a totally unashamed pursuit of fun.  It's not perfect, and the non-main genres aren't nearly as tied into the overall world as we're trying for in AVWW, but it's a great game and has been a significant inspiration to me both in forming the above ideas and in some specific gameplay features.

[eRe4s3r]

Space Rangers 2 is the perfect example of doing too many things and not excelling at any. (I liked SR1 way more). But its true that this kind of extremely complex mishmash of genres was extremely fun to play. Sadly once you grasped each system you realize just how shallow it all is.

This is why every system needs to be made for the hardcore player - you don't have to dig that deep to have fun, but if you do you find a lot of "depth" in each system, something that is important imo.

[keith.lamothe]

Space Rangers 2 is the perfect example of doing too many things and not excelling at any. (I liked SR1 way more).

I never played SR1, but I thought SR2 did a really excellent job with the text quests.  The mech-RTS was more of a minigame, and most more-than-2-players maps were randomly punishingly difficult if the AI players "decide who to attack" logic pointed them at you instead of at each other.  But even it had some shining moments of fun.  The arcade-like black hole battles were also only so-so, but interesting (and sometimes if you _really_ wanted an artifact...).

The combined effect was really fun, it's definitely one of my favorite games.

But yea, it had some significant flaws.  Flaws I've learned from

[Echo35]

Space Rangers 2 Spore is the perfect example of doing too many things and not excelling at any.

FTFY

[Zhaine]

Space Rangers 2 is the perfect example of doing too many things and not excelling at any. (I liked SR1 way more). But its true that this kind of extremely complex mishmash of genres was extremely fun to play. Sadly once you grasped each system you realize just how shallow it all is.

This is why every system needs to be made for the hardcore player - you don't have to dig that deep to have fun, but if you do you find a lot of "depth" in each system, something that is important imo.

I see your point, but actually disagree. Deus Ex had a lot of fairly shallow, more or less average (if taken on their own) interacting systems. The shooting was average, the stealth ok (but enemy AI terrible), the character development fairly basic, the options opened up via conversation completely simple and the hacking even simpler. But it's the interplay between these average-on-their-own elements, and the fact that the player can choose between them, that creates my absolute favorite game ever and one that I feel is 'deep' enough for anyone.

Similarly, I loved Space Rangers 2 a lot (though I admit I didn't finish it). No individual elements were brilliant or very deep, but all the different systems available, and the freedom to choose between them pretty much at will, was a heady cocktail of gaming wonderment (or something like that) for me.

Of course, this is one of those "I like this, they like that" type debates, where some will like a finely tuned but totally focused experience and some will prefer a crazy mixture of semi-functioning systems. And most, myself included, will like both and everything in between as long as the game in question is decently made (for instance I'm currently deep into Super Meat Boy, which is a very finely tuned 2D platformer with brilliant art direction and music, and not a great deal else to it).

However, I do take issue with your second paragraph. I don't think that individual elements of a multifaceted game need to be that 'deep' (or even all that brilliant) on their own for the game as a whole to be a deep and fascinating experience. Half decent on their own? Yes. Something more to them than the simplest possible implementation? Yes, at least for the most important elements. But 'every system made for the hardcore player'? No, they do not, and attempting to make a game that way may be a case of ambition over practicality (and thankfully it is not the approach Arcen have taken to AVWW as far as I can see).

[keith.lamothe]

Well, it's possible to for a subsystem to have "depth" for the "hardcore" player without being very complex.

But the problems I've generally seen in games trying to do this kind of thing isn't that a given subsystem is shallow, it's that it's broken.  Generally in balance.  Or in interface. Or in don't-be-stupid.  Or some combination.

I think the reason for that is that the subsystems don't see much testing or player-feedback-based revisions, etc.  One thing we'll really be hoping for from you guys is ongoing gameplay-based feedback to get all of the subsystems balanced, playable, etc.

[Cyborg]

Three cheers for space Rangers. Those games rock. You can bash it till the cows come home, but if you are just looking for a fun experience, it's made of fun. There are so many different things to do, even if it isn't all deep or "hard-core," I think that the purchase is justifiable. I like to judge my games based on how many hours I'm going to get out of it. I don't do a straight conversion to quarters, but that's the mentality.

I think that gamersgate or gog both do periodic sales on those games. Pick them up if you haven't!

It is true though, after you beat it, it's time to move on to something else. Unfortunately, I feel the same way about the Zelda games. I think that's something that arcen wants to avoid with their procedural games. The game should be fun any time you pick it up, and it should be varied enough to survive quite a long time or at least until the next expansion if there is enough popularity. AI war accomplished that, so it's possible.

It's really an interesting time for computer game developers. We are seeing more and more of a push away from the 10 hour game and towards replayability. I think that's in part due to the used game market owning AAA developers. If you can't make a game survive, it gets dropped or resold. Except for FPS gamers, who are being nickel and dimed into buying multiplayer(after the extremely short single player gets used up), $15 for five map pack multiplayer, and other extremely abusive tactics. I flat out refuse to engage with any game that behaves like it needs a $100 intravenous just so I can play with other people. It's an extremely huge opportunity for another "Counterstrike" to take the world by storm, if that's possible, what with the 1000 FPS games splitting the player base. As a genre, is becoming quite stale, with the same old point and click mechanics.

[keith.lamothe]

but if you are just looking for a fun experience, it's made of fun.

Exactly

There are so many different things to do, even if it isn't all deep or "hard-core," I think that the purchase is justifiable.

It is quite a lot of fun.  The failings I saw weren't really lack of hardcore-ness.  The Mech-RTS game could have been a LOT better through some simplifications and interface and AI improvements.

It is true though, after you beat it, it's time to move on to something else.

Yea, that was the trouble for me with SR2.  I think I got 3 full playthroughs out of it and I occasionally start up another one but don't get very far before I lose interest.

FWIW, SR2 does actually use a fair bit of procedural arrangement to randomize the starting positions of stuff, it's definitely not a linear game, but a lot of the actual bits of content (each text quest, each mech-rts battle, etc) are pretty much exactly the same from game to game.  On the other hand, it's very random which artifacts you find (which can really change how you play the game), where the higher tech items show up, etc.  And the game-start options can make for some fairly different scenarios (particularly Dominator strength).  But yea, in the end it had a pretty finite replayability, which was a shame.

I think that's something that arcen wants to avoid with their procedural games.

Definitely.  In AVWW we really want to make it so that:
1) Once you start a world, you never have to start a different one.
2) There are meaningful "wins" and "losses" but those never translate into "you can't play any more".
3) There's enough variety of gameplay so that if you need a "vacation" from one of the game-modes but you still want to be playing in and affecting the same world, you can do that.

We're not trying to make the gaming equivalent of the perpetual-motion-machine, but we're thinking in terms of 100s and 1000s of hours, not 10s.  Of course, some folks just don't have that kind of time for games so it'll need to be fun from the very start, etc.