The game development journey continues

After a short break over Christmas, I return to game development in full swing. As another study block begins, I am eager to continue to develop my creative and technical skills in new and exciting ways. This module looks to give the most creative free reign of any yet and I am eager to begin development, documenting my progress here on the blog.

Response to the brief

Due to the brief’s open-ended nature, I initially was met with a degree of choice paralysis regarding what I would base my project around. I took some time to understand what area of design I wanted to spend this study block developing.

Narrative design and mechanics design are what I feel most confident in. However, as Terry said, this module is a good excuse to strengthen areas of game design that I may be weaker in. While initially I was tempted to further develop these skills, I eventually decided that I would like to spend this time increasing my proficiency in an area I am much less confident with – level design. A key goal of mine is to have a wide design skillset, so as to be a useful team member in a variety of contexts, and I feel this project will help me take another step in that direction.

Once settling on level design, I quickly decided that  I would like to use the Creation Kit to make a dungeon within the world of Skyrim (2011). I was eager to do this because:

• I am very familiar with Skyrim. I feel that this knowledge will help me to make a level that is effective, while also subverting particular expectations about the game’s dungeon design.
• By choosing to mod a game, I can focus purely on level design. If I were to create a level space in an engine like Unity, much of my time would be spent scripting a character controller and mechanics, which would take away from crucial time that could be spent elsewhere.
• Skyrim’s dungeon’s are modular. Bethesda use “kits” to build their interior level spaces. These are essentially packages of modular assets that fit together to make dungeons. Due to their modularity, levels can be efficiently blocked out, and I can focus on how the level flows and feels, rather than if it is consistent and functional.

Getting familiar with Creation Kit

After spending some time making sure that the Creation Kit was correctly installed and set-up, I was ready to get into the engine and begin learning its intricacies. After following along with a number of tutorials online, I already feel that I am getting to grips with the engine. This is likely due to my experience in Unity, which has a lot of similarities and analogues to what is found here.

Interestingly, the Creation Kit works primarily using three windows: the ‘Object Window’, the ‘Cell Window’, and the render window’. The Object Window is where you can find almost any asset, effect, or marker used in Skyrim that can be dragged into your level. The Cell Window features a list of all objects currently in your level. Finally, the Render Window, is unsurprisingly, where you edit and interact with your level. There is also a handy toolbar that is used to handle features such as grid snapping, Navmeshing, physics, and much more.

For an engine that is over ten years old, I am impressed with the Creation Kit’s functionality. However one feature of many engines is sorely missing: the ability to play and test your scene in-engine. The only way to actually test my implementation is to start up the game and load into the dungeon using a console command. While this certainly works, it is far more time-consuming than I am used to, and makes me appreciate how far game engines have come.

Now that I have spent a decent amount of time experimenting with the engine, learning keyboard shortcuts, and familiarising myself with Bethesda’s naming conventions, I feel confident to begin production of my level next week.

Research

A lot of my research this week has been spent familiarising myself with the Creation Kit. Thankfully, Bethesda made a ten-part tutorial series (Bethesda, 2012) that I was able to follow along with. It goes over the basics of navigating the engine, working with kits, setting up Navmeshes, and general behavioural scripting for NPCs and enemies. While it is hard to cover the breadth of the Creation Kit in one tutorial series, I feel that it has sufficiently taught me enough to begin creating levels with the tool.

I wanted to understand the process behind Bethesda’s level creation, so that I could best replicate it myself to make a high quality level. To do this, I started by watching a fascinating GDC talk (Burgess, 2014) by Bethesda’s lead level designer Joel Burgess on the iterative level design process of Skyrim and Fallout 3 (2008). It was a very insightful talk, discussing the importance of iteration, and effectively organising your time as a developer to maximise productivity and minimise setbacks. Bethesda break their level design up into roughly five ‘passes’ (Concept > Layout > Gameplay > Complete > Polish) and never advance onto a new pass until the previous is fully implemented across all levels. I intend to replicate this process: concepting my entire level, blocking out the spaces, making sure the combat and item placement is balanced, finalising pacing/flow, and finally polishing everything to a high standard.

I then watched another GDC talk (Burgess and Purkeypile, 2015) on the modular art of Fallout 4 (2015). The talk covered the benefits and drawbacks of working with modular “kits”, and how they can be best utilised to make for the most efficient workflow. They also discussed how their assets had been improved and expanded on in response to issues and inconsistencies in Skyrim’s modular assets. By learning what had been improved on, I was able to better understand the limitations of Skyrim’s assets and development engine.

Finally, I have started playing through Skyrim again, for the countless time. This time, however, I am paying close attention to the layout of its many dungeons, and making as many notes as possible. In particular, I am intending to analyse how each kit’s pieces are utilised, and how the level designers used elements of clutter and various inserts to hide repetition that can set in with modular art assets.

References

BETHESDA. 2012. Creation Kit Tutorial Series [YouTube tutorial series]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDKivlGmia4 [accessed 24 January 2022].

BURGESS, Joel. 2014. How We Used Iterative Level Design to Ship Skyrim and Fallout 3 [GDC talk]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhW8CY8XkFg&t=1655s [accessed 25 January].

BURGESS, Joel and Nate PURKEYPILE. 2016. Fallout 4’s Modular Level Design [GDC talk]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBAM27YbKZg [accessed 28 January].

Fallout 3. 2008. Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks.

Fallout 4. 2015. Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks.

Skyrim. 2011. Bethesda Game Studios, Bethesda Softworks.

Lecture

The final lecture for GAM250 focused largely on the developer/publisher relationship, as well as how to best accommodate for trends and a rapidly evolving industry within our design. It also tied everything taught throughout this module together and provided some great points for reflection.

As stated in the lecture, it is highly likely that as designers, we will have to work with publishers throughout our careers. Because of this, it is crucial that we are able to maintain a good relationship with them, so to best serve our team and meet publisher requirements. Nick’s tips on how to best balance publisher relationships with design considerations were invaluable. The emphasis on clarity from the outset seemed to be particularly important, as the effort to minimise miscommunication should be taken through every stage of development. By doing this we can hopefully limit the amount of unrealistic expectations our publisher presses on to us. Understanding the internal politics of a publisher was something I had not considered before. While it is important to stay as neutral as possible, understanding where these politics exist can be useful in ensuring the best for you studio.

As someone looking to enter indie development, the sections on ’boutique publishers’ and how they fit into the publishing landscape a large was beneficial. Similarly to what we have seen in the film industry with distributors such as A24, these publishers each have their own identity and values that are clearly conveyed to players. This can be highly useful to indie studios looking to maximise their audience, as alongside the marketing benefits they offer, their name alone can serve as a stamp of approval and signifier of quality that will likely guarantee an audience.

By the end of the lecture Nick wrapped up the module, tying it all back in to what we have learnt throughout this module. The emphasis on a ‘playcentric approach’ remained true, with the player still being the centre of our crafted experiences. We were encouraged to reflect on what design knowledge we had gained, and how we can use it to be a better designer for our players, our studio, and most importantly, for ourselves.

GDD Work

As this has been the final week before hand-in, my GDD contributions have largely been formatting and grammar checking this week. I also added in my bibliography and full list of figures.

I read through the entirety of the document, ensuring that everything was written as clearly and concisely as possible, converting blocks of text into bullet points where possible. I also added in various links within the document, directing readers to sections that elaborate certain points (i.e. “see chapter 4.1 for further detail”). Lastly, I had friends read over the document, and suggest any areas which they felt were unclear or missing. One area that came up as missing was the lack of detail over the game’s fail states and how they impact the player. I made sure to add these in their own subheading under ‘core gameplay’. Finally, I added a title, contents page, headers and footers. I hope that these additions and refinements have made the document as accessible and digestible as possible. While a design document should be an extensive ‘bible’ that details all design considerations for the team, it should also be easily referred to, with information being presented deliberately.

Individual challenge

As a literal interpretation of this week’s lecture title, the individual challenge tasked us with taking a purely singleplayer game and adding multiplayer elements to it. I chose to turn Hotline Miami (2012) into an intense, fast-paced multiplayer shooter.

==============================================================================

Some amazing singleplayer games have successfully managed to make the transition into multiplayer. Often times they add co-op elements (such as Far Cry 4 (2014), or Unravel Two), and other times they are able to create standalone multiplayer modes that manage to retain the core of the singleplayer experience but move it into a player vs. player context (i.e. The Last of Us (2013)).

My proposed multiplayer game would be a sequel to Hotline Miami. Retaining the design pillars of the original, players would instead fight each other in conflict that moves at breakneck speed.

Some core features:

• The speed of death still applies. You only need to hit your opponent once to kill them, however you only need to be hit once too.
• The lock-on mechanic is no longer present, making shots more skill-based.
• Certain modifiers can be applied to matches such as “melee only”, or “thrown kills only”.
• Progression is tied to the mask system. Every time you level up, unlock a new mask.
• Rounds and matches will be very fast. A perfect game for when you only have limited time.

Match types:

• 1v1. First to score 10 points wins.
• 8 person free for all. First to score 30 kills wins.
• Battle royal. 100 players and last one to survive wins.

==============================================================================

I think that Hotline Miami‘s core gameplay loop would lend itself well to a competitive context. Linking back nicely to week five’s topic, this game would be all about testing player’s twitch skills. Much like the original, the faster your reactions are the more likely you are to survive. There is also an added layer of unpredictability that comes from playing against real people, that would keep things feeling fresh.

Iron designer challenge

Unfortunately, this journal is due before the final iron designer challenge is set to take place, so I will not be able to discuss the submission for this week.

Further reading

In response to this week’s focus on developing for publishers, I decided to look further into industry guidance on the matter. Eventually, I found an informative article on Game Developer (formerly Gamasutra) about healthy developer/publisher relationships (Sumo 2019). This article served as a great follow-on from the lecture, featuring real publisher contacts that were available for viewing. The author went on to break down what each element of the contract meant, clarifying from both a developer’s and publisher’s perspective. He ensured to stress the fact that contracts are almost always negotiable, so “if there is anything that really jumps out at you that you feel is unreasonable, ask for it to be explained and if necessary, changed” (Sumo 2019).

Module reflection

As the GAM250 module comes to a close, I would like to take some time to reflect on what I have learnt and how I have developed as a designer over the past twelve weeks.

Firstly, the lectures were all deeply informative, with Nick’s extensive research, alongside his first-hand industry experience making for great points of learning. Every lecture covered an important topic of game design, and the overall structure of the module meant that each lecture topic flowed into one another well. Every week, I was able to get multiple pages of notes to be referred back to later. This knowledge was then further consolidated in the weekly seminars, in which we were able to discuss the subjects with esteemed industry guest lecturers. It was highly beneficial to hear a variety of professional opinions on design and I gained a lot from the dialogue that was engaged with during these sessions.

The regular individual challenges were a great spark for exercising various design muscles, as informed by the key knowledge I had gained from that week’s lectures. It is true that a lack of constraints is the enemy of creativity, and I found that the challenges given at the start of each week gave just enough limitations and constraint to spark new ideas and design solutions. There are multiple submissions that I could easily see myself developing further into personal projects in the future, which is a fantastic result. In particular, my ‘Bomb Defusal: Clean Up Crew’, and ‘Tic Tac Toe: Current Wars’ game concepts are ones that I am particularly proud of, and would love to take further. My character write up for ‘Seamus Kelly’ was also a lot of fun to create.

The same can be said for the weekly iron designer challenges, which also greatly helped me to actively apply what I had learnt in each week. The added benefit of a group setting made for a constant back and forth of creativity, with many of my teammates proposing great design ideas that I had never considered. These challenges felt like a safe space in which we could throw ideas around, no matter how left field they may be.

Overall, I am happy with my portfolio submission of Slam City Skates. I ensured to work on it consistently throughout the study block, regularly updating it as new ideas were sparked. Because of this, I feel that my GDD was given room to breathe, becoming an ever-evolving document that was updated over time, similarly to how many design documents are formed in professional development. At forty-five pages and 7151 words, I feel that my document was an extensive look at the game’s design and I am proud of the amount of detail that was put into it. In particular, the ‘Mechanics Breakdown’ was a chapter that I feel effectively compartmentalised mechanics in an easily readable way.

I feel that I could have improved my submission by having more visualisations of gameplay features and levels. The two level mock-ups included helped to convey level design much better than my writing could, and I feel that this could be applicable to other aspects of the document. For instance, having visualisations of certain mechanics at play, enemy types, or usable items could have helped to make the document more understandable. This is certainly something to consider as I move forward as a designer.

In conclusion, this entire module has been instrumental to my development as a game designer. Many thanks go to Nick for conducting such a consistently engaging module and imparting his wealth of design knowledge. Through regular engagement with lectures, seminars and weekly challenges I feel that I have learnt a great deal about many key aspects of design. Furthermore, regular research and reflection, alongside weekly reflective blog posts have pushed me to critically reflect on my progression, and my role in the industry as a whole. I look forward to the future of my educational career and beyond, as I take this invaluable knowledge and experience forward and further develop myself a designer.

References

Far Cry 5. 2018. Ubisoft Montreal and Ubisoft Toronto, Ubisoft.

Hotline Miami. 2012. Dennaton Games, Devolver Digital.

The Last of Us. 2013. Naughty Dog, Sony Computer Entertainment.

SUMO, Ryan. 2019. ‘What Does A Healthy Publisher/Developer Relationship Look Like (With Real Contract Details!)’ Game Developer [online]. Available at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/what-does-a-healthy-publisher-developer-relationship-looks-like-with-real-contract-details- [accessed 8 December 2021].

Unravel Two. 2018. Coldwood Interactive, Electronic Arts.

 

Lecture

Considering the role of sequels within the games industry was an interesting topic for this week’s lecture. Perhaps more so than any other industry, sequels play a huge role in the continued success of their creators. With game development being a medium based on incremental innovation, it follows suit that this structure lends itself well to the conception of sequels.

It is important to consider the fact that the experience of sequels can be delivered in multiple ways outside of traditional subsequent entries. If a DLC or expansion expands on a game’s mechanics or systems enough, it is more than likely that it meets the criteria of a sequel (look no further than Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon (2013) and Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare (2010)). Likewise, while rare, mods can be considered sequels – and in some cases are popular enough to warrant the development of a separate, original product themselves. Especially within the realm of games as a service, expansions have the capability to radically change a game’s core experience enough that it is largely indistinguishable from the original title.

The four considerations for sequels as posited by Challenges for Game Designers (Brathwaite and Schreiber 2008) were helpful to examine, and I am sure that I will refer back to them if I am ever in the position to create a sequel. By exploiting, expanding, exploring, and exterminating, designers can make the most informed decisions when innovating through sequels.

In today’s modern context, audience feedback is more easily accessible than ever. By looking at data sources such as Steam Spy and Metacritic, as well as open discussion forums, developers can gain critical insight into what fans love or hate about a title, and what would best serve them in a sequel. Strategic use of these data sources is imperative to making a sequel that caters to as many fans as possible.

GDD work

In response to feedback that I received from Nick, I have made some additions to my GDD this week. The primary element that he felt was lacking from my submission was specific gameplay examples, which I agree with.

I started by mocking up some level designs in Adobe Illustrator (fig. 1 and fig. 2), so as to better visually convey how the player will move through the world. I am happy with how these turned out, and I think that they are relatively clean and readable. Many of the elements have been colour coded, so as to better represent the traversal tools at the player’s disposal. I hope that the inclusion of the illustrations helps readers to better understand the level layout and design of my game.

I also decided to add another flowchart to the GDD, this time detailing the flow and progression of a main mission within the game. By showing this one example, I hope that readers are able to form an idea of how main missions within the game will generally be structured.

Overall, I am happy with these additions of specific gameplay examples. I feel that they go lengths to visually convey the game’s design and provide examples of systems.

Iron designer challenge

Our iron designer assignment required us to make a pitch presentation for an infamously bad videogame, with my team being assigned Duke Nukem Forever (2011). The pitch was to be a serious proposal, meant to right the wrongs of its predecessor and improve design in multiple aspects.

One key element that we felt could elevate the gameplay of a traditional boomer shooter such as Duke Nukem was the inclusion of dual wielding (or Dual-ke Wielding in our pitch). Taking cues from immersive sim titles, players would be able to hold a weapon in their right hand and a utility (such as a grapple, teleport grenade etc.) in their left hand. Our aim for this was to allow for dynamic gameplay situations and an added layer of player agency which allowed for players to choose their favourite combinations.

The story would follow a retired Duke Nukem being brought back into the fight against aliens. Our spin on the original formula was that this time, rather than Earth being invaded, Duke would invade the aliens home planet, essentially invading their invasion.

Alongside the other additions we made to the formula, we felt it was a relatively effective modernisation of the franchise. Our presentation won, receiving ‘funding’ to enter production, which was a welcome surprise. Nick also let me know that I am currently in the lead for our iron designer challenge rankings, so I will have to work extra hard next week to try to hold onto that title!

Further reading

Following on from the lecture, I went to Metacritic to see how various sequels were reviewed by audiences and critics alike. For instance, while the original Portal (2007) has an impressive score of 90, its sequel Portal 2 (2011) has 95. From my own experience playing both games, I can attest that the sequel is a significant step up from the original, including a longer and more fleshed-out story, the addition of more mechanics and modifiers, and even the inclusion of a wholly separate co-op mode with its own campaign. This shows that Valve had a strong understanding of audience responses to the original title and made important design decisions that further expanded and innovated on that core experience. They were successfully able to exploit, expand explore and exterminate in their transition between game entries.

I also read an interesting article on the practicalities of video game sequels (Bycer 2016). It shared a lot of points with Nick’s lecture, discussing how sequels allow developers to improve on the baseline mechanics and formula of previous entries. A lot of games franchises do not reach their full potential until the third entry or beyond, with that only being assured if the previous games sell enough in the first place. This is due to the iteration and improvements that can be made between sequels, regardless of how substantial they may be.

References

BYCER, Josh. 2016. ‘How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Video Game Sequels’. Game Developer [online]. Available at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-video-game-sequels [accessed 1 December 2021].

Duke Nukem Forever. 2011. 3D Realms, 2K Games.

Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon. 2013. Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft.

Portal. 2007. Valve Corporation, Valve Corporation.

Portal 2. 2011. Valve Corporation, Valve Corporation.

Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare. 2010. Rockstar San Diego, Rockstar Games.

BRATHWAITE, Brenda, and Ian SCHREIBER. Challenges for Game Designers. Boston: Course Technology.