Worker Co-ops and Sustainability

The industry is unsustainable…

If you’re a developer, you’ve probably felt it. If you’re in the gaming press, you might have written about it. If you’re a gamer, maybe you’ve noticed you’ve been paying more for less over time.

Careers in the game industry remain short. The GDC State of the Industry survey in 2019 pointed out that as the industry has aged, the percentage of respondents who have spent more than 6 years in the industry did not increase. Talented, experienced developers are burning out, only to be replaced by young, fresh-faced kids out of game dev school, ready to be burned out in service of quarterly profits (and carrying plenty of student debt to boot).

While all this is happening, the game industry itself is massively profitable; more than Hollywood. And yet, have we as developers and players seen the benefit?

… but what’s the alternative?

There are two ways forward. For the workers who, for various reasons, can’t themselves directly challenge the ownership structure of the industry, unionization seems to be the best way to fight back against the current model of worker and creative exploitation. But, for folks who have the ability to take a slightly larger risk, there’s a more direct way to challenge the existing model and to truly take power for ourselves. And that is to begin to challenge the status quo of studio ownership with a time-honored, but relatively new to games, model: the worker co-op. This is what I’m planning to establish, to provide an example of how we can make a sustainable game industry.

What’s a worker co-op?

There are various legal and technical requirements to be officially recognized as a co-op in different places, but ultimately the core concepts behind a worker co-op are:

  • All workers own a share of the studio.

  • All decisions are made either directly or through elected officers on a one-worker one-vote basis.

  • A majority of the shares in the studio are owned by workers on a one-worker one-share basis.

Beyond that, there’s a lot of wiggle room. Co-ops can operate more like a traditional corporation with executives and a board of directors (who are voted in by the workers), they can be more horizontal and reach decisions on consensus, they can be large (as in the case of the Mondragon Corporation) or small.

Why will a worker co-op fix things?

A common source of many of the problems that face both developers and consumers of games is simple: game companies tend to be corporations with the common goal of earning the most profit for their shareholders and/or owners. Particularly in publicly traded companies, decisions are often made that hurt workers and can even hurt the long-term success of the company in sight of short-term gains in stock price. By removing the perverse incentives of public ownership, and by distributing power and ownership to the workers, who have the greatest incentive to keep the company stable, these problems can be avoided.

Of course, making games is still challenging, and while some of the old problems will go away by moving to the co-op model, some new ones will arise ⁠— in particular, seeking funding will be a challenge. Keeping budgets reasonable and seeking alternative methods of funding (like Kickstarter, Patreon, etc.) will be crucial to building a sustainable co-op.

But, game developers are creative people. We’re used to building things. We can build this, too. And this time, if we build it, we own it.

So what do I do?

If you’re a game developer and you’re interested in making a more sustainable, more humane, and more creatively fulfilling game industry, send me an email! I am planning to start a co-operative game studio headquartered in Southern California in the near future. This will not be “work for equity” or “work for exposure” ⁠— I plan to offer salary, benefits, and a share of the studio to anyone who works for the co-op. Again, please get in touch for more details.

In the short term, my primary need is for an experienced Art Director/Lead Artist, but don’t hesitate to get in touch if you don’t fit that role—we’ll need to add more folks as we grow and it can’t hurt to let us know you’re interested!

I’m not a game developer, but I’m interested in more info!

If you’re not a developer, but you’re interested in the project, please go ahead and sign up for a mailing list for news on eventual crowdfunding, game releases, or other related co-op information! I promise not to sell your contact info, spam you unnecessarily or do other gross/shady things with it.

Name

Thanks for reading! Let’s all work to build a better industry together.

Emo Game Design Pt.1: Bark and Bite

How does dodging a fireball in Mario make you feel?

When we’re designing the challenges that players overcome, game designers often focus on strictly mechanical concerns; balance, timing, difficulty. But, ultimately, I’d argue, demonstrating mastery over a game system, particularly in a non-competitive game, isn’t really a virtue in and of itself. Getting good at Mario or Dark Souls doesn’t make me a better person. And in our role as game designers I feel we have a responsibility to ask what we’ve left the player with when they put down the controller. Distracting players momentarily from the difficulties of their life has some value, but if we don’t leave a lasting emotional or intellectual impact, our game will be subsequently be replaced in their mind by the next fleeting distraction. And, as distractions - like social media - become more able to constantly push out content to distract, types of experiences start to lose their value.

Along those lines, some games are purely mechanical challenges. When I play Picross, or do a crossword, I’m not looking to emotionally engage with the content, really, just going through a rote process that distracts and calms me. But I don’t remember specific Picrosses or crosswords that I played through. They are designed to flow in and out of your mind with ease, which is why you usually buy them in packs of hundreds.

But Mario and Dark Souls aren’t those kinds of momentary distractions because they aren’t about the mechanical challenges, they’re about what the mechanical challenges make you feel. A Mario level or Dark Souls environment is about taking you through an emotional ride and leaving you with the memory of those emotions. I don’t really recall the geometry of Blighttown but I absolutely can recall the emotional dread of moving through it.

But, more importantly, how do we create these emotions? What techniques can we use? I wanted to outline some that I’ve found particularly effective. I’ll start in this article with something I’ll call “Bark” and “Bite”.

Bark v. Bite

When presented with a new challenge, players often are unsure of what exactly they’ll need to do to overcome it. But the initial visual presentation of the challenge is often a clue; I’ll call this it’s “bark”. Does this look scary? Does it seem hard when you first encounter it?

On the other hand, there is the actual, practical mechanical actions required to overcome a challenge. I’ll call this the challenges “bite”. This is contrasted to the bark in that, sometimes, something that seems quite easy can in fact be subtly quite difficult and something that seems difficult can be easy.

I’ll use Mario for two examples.

 

All Bark, No Bite: Auto Levels

An Auto Level, in Mario Maker parlance, is usually a level that looks impossible, but in fact is won just by holding right for the entire level. The experience is exciting both in kind of the “safe but seems unsafe” way that rollercoasters are, and also just in seeing how the level creator put together this machine to let you get through.

 

All Bite, No Bark: Kaizo Blocks

Maybe the exact opposite example of an Auto level is a Kaizo Block - an invisible coin block in a Mario level that exists specifically for the purpose of surprising you by killing you when you make a jump a certain way. You don’t even know that a challenge exists there until it kills you the first time. These kinds of sucker punches (the Soulsborne games frequently use these) create a sense of caution, surprise, and (in the right player) humor. They are, basically, pranks.

Balancing Bark and Bite

However, outside of these niche Mario Maker levels, these concepts have a lot of value too, and learning to balance them as a designer will make you much . A common way to make a player feel powerful as they learn is to increase the “Bark” of a mechanic, without necessarily increasing its “Bite”. For example, a common trick I’ve used is to fire a large number of projectiles, having one target a player’s location directly and other scattered randomly at a distance. The player only really has to dodge the one aimed at them, but the other projectiles give the attack a sense of realism and provides the player with a greater sense of power and accomplishment for overcoming the challenge. Increase the missiles - which are from a gameplay point of view essentially just noise - and increase the sense that the player is overcoming overwhelming power to succeed.

On the other hand, increasing “Bite” without increasing “Bark” is a great way to signal to players that they need to be more cautious, or think harder about a challenge. For instance, if you’re making multiple levels of difficulty of a single piece of content, an effective way to highlight the changes is to specifically design to foil a simpler strategy employed on lower difficulties - which allows the player to discover naturally through the course of their attempts on something that their old strategies won’t work. It forces them to take a step back and think through the entire challenge again, to reevaluate old decisions. And, if you made it overly obvious up front that their old strategy wouldn’t work without letting them see it fail for themselves, the emotional moment of reckoning of seeing their plan fail wouldn’t have the punch it would have otherwise.

The critical point here, which is going to be a theme whenever I write about Emotional Game Design, is to put yourself in the shoes of a player who is engaging with the mechanics for the first time, rather than just designing for the specific challenge you want players to overcome. Look at both the actual mechanical difficulty as well as the presentation of that difficulty to make an experience not just challenging, but memorable.

I could go on forever about designing for emotions, but I want to actually post something so I’ll cut this off here. Stay tuned for more!

Welcome! New Site, and Co-op adventures

Hi! Lots of changes recently that I think warranted me setting up a “real website”, so I went ahead and did that.

Recently I:

  • Left my job as an Encounter Designer on World of Warcraft at Blizzard Entertainment! It was an amazing experience and I learned an incredible amount from the other great folks there, and loved my team, but I have new experiences and ideas I needed to explore.

  • Started working with the Orange County chapter of Game Workers Unite. We’re working on organizing workers in the game industry to deal with several pervasive issues of work conditions, underpay, crunch, and more.

  • Started taking steps to establish a new, worker-owned and controlled game development studio. Progress is, as might be expected, somewhat slow on that front, but I am excited to move forward and have been chatting with some folks who seem interested in the idea. I also started Co-op Mode, a discord server for folks interested in exploring the idea of worker-owned co-operative game development studios.

  • I also recently appeared on an episode of very cool leftist gaming podcast No Cartridge! Go and listen! And support them on their Patreon!

Anyways, if you’ve come by, thanks for coming by! You can check out the About Me section for my portfolio and a timeline of my career if you’re interested to learn more, and you can always see my latest ramblings on my Twitter. Welcome!

Persona 5, untranslatable jokes, and tokin on 4/20


To preface this: Persona 5 is the best JRPG in years. Please buy the game. Please do not use this or any bitching about the localization you see as a reason not to get it, because it isn’t one. It’s great. Play it. I will probably be making a post soon about some of the brilliant game design things in it!

So I was irritated about one of the questions in Persona 5 and made a random tweet about it after looking it up in english sources and trying to figure out a factual basis for it.  All the english sources on tokin (the name of a promoted pawn in Shogi) did not mention the history of how kin became to, and, more importantly, I could not find a single example of a cursive kin anywhere that looked anything like a to. So what the game was saying seemed pretty darn suspect.

 
tumblr_inline_oorku15RSw1u62828_540.png
 

Now to be fair, I don’t consider myself an authority on Japanese language and wouldn’t expect to be cited as such, but shortly thereafter Chris Kohler at Kotaku linked to the tweets and made an article based on them:

http://kotaku.com/this-might-be-persona-5s-biggest-translation-fail-1794223069

Now I want to specify that I was not contacted ahead of time about this. I didn’t plan or want this to become an article at a major game site. I was just kinda bitching. I did not expect this to extend beyond the people who follow me, many of whom give no shits about Persona, localization accuracy, or the minutiae of Kanji. If I had been asked, I would have preferred not to be cited for two reasons:

  • It’s really a minor issue and I don’t think it’s representative of my overall feelings on the game.

  • The level of research I put into it the tweet was appropriate for a tweet, not for an article in a major game news site.

But, at the same time, I don’t think Chris had any bad intentions with the article - it was just an interesting point of the language and an odd thing to show up in an English localized game. Chris is a good dude.

Anyways, as soon as I saw it had been made into an article, I panicked because if I wanted to be more sure I was accurate, I should have looked at Japanese sources. So I did. And, thankfully, japanese google provided this article which was massively helpful:

http://www.tonan.jp/moji/10tokin/

So, this is a long article. But what it boils down to, is arguing that it is not, in fact, a hiragana と at all - but, it also argues that it is quite uncertain as to what it actually is.

It looks like he ends up feeling like the most likely explanation is that it originated from  今, which is an ateji (phonetic replacement or spelling of a kanji that is read a certain way with no regard to its meaning) for 金.

http://tonan.seesaa.net/article/31091021.html

Anyways, either way, my explanation was wrong, which I then brought up to Chris, who was nice enough to update the article.

Now, while admitting that I was inaccurate in my factual reasoning as to why it was factually wrong, the fact remains that the statement in the english version of the game - that と金 is the cursive form of a specific kanji - is wrong. Now, it appears that there’s argument as to whether the Japanese was even correct - but it’s certainly different, and less wrong than the English. Let me explain why.

Here’s the original Japanese:

tumblr_inline_oorku1eTdG1u62828_500.jpg

In text:

この字はある漢字の崩し字なんだ、 なにか分かる?

So, let’s break this down. First, I’ll translate the easy nouns.  字 (ji) is character (it can mean other stuff but that’s most likely in this context).  漢字 (kanji) is… kanji.  

The other noun is 崩し字 (kuzushiji) , which can sort of theoretically be translated to “cursive” or “simplified” character - but it doesn’t mean cursive in really the same sense that western cursive is used. There’s a ton of possible ways to write a character in  崩し字 - really, anything that is written using a brush and omits or simplifies strokes is technically 崩し字. Which is why, in the articles above, he dislikes the argument that tokin originates from a  崩し字 of  金, because while it could be a theoretically VERY cavalier 崩し字, it really drastically simplifies the kanji (far moreso than the other shoji pieces simplify the same kanji). But I’ll give that that’s a lot of detail the game can’t provide so I’ll let it get away with cursive form :)

Okay, so we have:

この character はある kanji の cursive form なんだ、なにか分かる?

Next, the other easy stuff.  この is this.  なんだ is “what is”.  なにか means something. So we get:

This character  はある kanji の cursive form what is、something 分かる?

Last we’ll do verbs and particles. I won’t explain particles because they’re a whole section of Japanese grammar that’s not really pertinent and is somewhat complex but suffice it to say they are short “grammatical helpers” that mark the grammatical function of words in sentences, sort of like helping verbs and articles in English. Anyways, the verbs here are ある (aru), which means to be/exist (specially referring to inanimate objects), and  分かる (wakaru) which means a lot of different things in english, but usually it means do you understand or know. The only other things are  は, which is a particle marking a new topic of conversation in a sentence, and has no real translatable direct equivalent in english, and の, which indicates that a noun possesses or modifies another noun. So, without any word rearrangement, you end up with:

“This character is cursive form of kanji what is, something understand?”

Which is a little intentionally obtuse but some simple rearrangement gets you something closer to english:

“This character is cursive form of what kanji, something understand?”

This is all you can really infer from transliteration. To turn this into actual English we need to start making value judgments and doing actual translation. So to get English out of this, the first and easiest thing to do is to realize that  なにか分かる is just ellipsing the subject, which is probably the student who the teacher is asking the question to. Also, you need your helping verbs and pronouns, and the nanika wakaru is more of an expression, so it’s probably closer to “do you know?”. All of that is interpretation and at the translator’s discretion, but it’s necessary to end up with something that’s vaguely English.

For the first part of the sentence, you are almost actually at a readable fragment, you just need an article, and here’s where I think the translation goes wrong. It uses “the”, when it clearly should use “a”. 

Why? “the” implies singularity and absoluteness. “the” implies that there is a single, or at the very least primary answer to the question “what is the cursive form of this kanji”, and that that single answer is the one they are looking for. But any Japanese person will tell you that 1) there are many cursive forms of Kanji and 2) that the “primary” cursive form of the 金, if it existed, would not be what is seen on the shogi piece. In fact, the very next slide conflicts with the usage of “the”, because it shows three different purported cursive forms of  金- and again, whether tokin factually is a cursive form of 金 is debatable, but that is at least asserted in the Japanese text, too!

 
tumblr_inline_oorku2rIqb1u62828_400.png
 

So, I think a closer translation (and closer to the original Japanese structure) would be something like: “This character is a cursive form of a kanji - do you know which?” If you wanted to make it flow better, you could go from there. Something like “Can you tell me which cursive kanji this character originated from?”

Now, you might argue a simple swapping of “a” for “the” isn’t a big deal. And you would be right to some extent. But I certainly would argue that it undermines the coolest part of these little quiz games, which is that they actually teach you things! You could imagine someone playing this game, then later picking up Japanese, seeing a hiragana “to”, and telling their teacher “oh I learned that’s a cursive “kin!”” to be greeted by a frowning head-nod no. One of the coolest parts of the persona games is the opportunity to learn about Japanese, and it’s a bummer that it gives you misinformation by way of a relatively simple error.

But -  I actually think the bigger translation issues, and the reason why I think a bigger change should have been made to this question, is in the answers. So, this is actually even a tricky question in japanese! While searching for japanese sources, I actually found this blog:

http://karigezima.com/archives/25714

which says:

将棋経験者ならすぐに分かる問題です。

将棋してない人からしたら難しい…かな?(´・ω・`;)

Or - “Shogi players will instantly know the answer. But people who don’t play shogi probably screamed about how hard it is, huh?”

So yeah - this is a tricky question in Japanese. But, in typical multiple choice test fashion, it actually has something to help you out:

 
tumblr_inline_oorku3cCYb1u62828_500.jpg
 

So here’s the answer options in Japanese. Let’s compare them with the english options:

 
tumblr_inline_oorku3Zy1r1u62828_500.jpg
 

So, to start things off, the question is asking about the cursive form of kanji - which you need to be able to see the kanji to determine, but the english version doesn’t let you see the freaking kanji! And, a single English word might correspond to multiple kanji. For instance, divination as a kanji could just as easily be 占 as卜. And, while it’s more of a technicality because  金 is certainly the most obvious kanji that means “gold”, gold could also mean  ,  釛 ,  ,  鎏 ,  鏐 . Those might not be things that a sane person would think of when given the option “gold”, the fact remains that the game is supposed to be translated into English and you shouldn’t need to know Kanji to understand and answer questions correctly in it!

But I think the bigger deal here is that you actually miss out on the “dummy” option. See, because while “Divination” is technically what 卜 means, it is not an option in the Japanese version because of that - it’s there because it’s looks almost exactly like ト, which is the same sound, “to”, in the other major japanese character system, Katakana.

So for a Japanese speaker, you instantly see that dumb middle option and rule it out because it’s clearly a trick answer for dummies. It’s even maybe a little chuckle-worthy. You just miss out on all of that in english.

Because it’s so untranslatable to someone who doesn’t understand Japanese, and because really the relevant point here narratively and symbolically is that the lowest shogi piece can promote into the Gold General, and how that ties into the idea of neauvau riche, I think it would have been nice to just ask something like “This piece indicates when a pawn is promoted to what rank”? It’s a bit further from the Japanese, but again, if you can’t convey the meaning in Japanese without explaining what kanji are, how they are simplified, and make the answers make sense visually to players, maybe just get at the heart of the issue and the bigger narrative point.

Anyways, long story short - I still think this could have been better, but I’m glad it existed in a way because it was very much a learning opportunity for me!

After posting this, someone added a helpful comment:

Hey, Nate. MDB again. Thought I could lend my expertise, since it’s always better to have two experts tackling a problem like this. Here are some notes:

なんだ (nanda) does not mean “what is.” It’s the short/informal form of the phrase なのです (nano desu), which is simply a way to end a clause that ends in a noun while also inserting your personal feelings into the phrase. In effect, it’s a verbal punctuation mark. If that sounds terribly confusing, that’s because it’s Japanese, one of the most complicated languages on Earth.

The word ある (aru) is, as you said, a verb meaning “to be/exist.” And it’s true that placing a verb before a noun makes it a relative clause. So you technically could say that the translation for ある漢字 is “the kanji that exists.” But that extremely inefficient and redundant. You’d get the exact same meaning from taking the “aru” out, so there’s no reason for it to be there.

Which is why! The word “aru” before a noun is used to indicate a particular one of those things. So ある日 means “someday,” ある人 means “somebody,” etc. So the proper translation for ある漢字 would be “some (particular) kanji.”

なにか (nanika) does indeed mean “something” or “anything,” but in the particle か (ka) indicates a request for specific information. When asking a question with a yes or no answer, you use かどうか (kadouka). Examples:

「いくらか分かる?」(Ikura ka wakaru?) “Do you know how much (it is)?”

「どこにあるか全く知らんねんで。」(Doko ni aru ka mattaku wakannen de.) “I ain’t got a clue where it is.”

なに (nani), as I’m sure you know, means “what,” so when the teacher asks, “Nani ka wakaru?” she’s not saying, “Something understand?” it’s more like, “Do you know what (it is)?”

Finally, in your post, you accidentally omitted part of the Japanese version. You wrote:

「 この字はある漢字の崩し字なんだ 、なにか分かる?」

But the text in the game actually says:

「 この字はある漢字の崩し字なんだけど、なにか分かる?」

It’s not super important, but it still holds a minor significance that has to be considered depending on how you want to convey the character. Personally, I like to translate けど (kedo) to “Even though”, but the word “but” works just as well. It’s much more complicated than that, so just role with it, for now. Get it? “Role”? ‘Cause it’s an RPG? Um…anyway.

When you put it all together, there are several ways you could translate the sentence, but it turns out the way it was localized was actually pretty faithful: “This character is the cursive form of a specific kanji. Do you know which one it is?” A little verbose compared to the original, but grammatically, very close!

Hope that helps!

Thanks! That’s helpful :D It’s good to talk about this stuff.

You’re right about  なんだ in this context, for sure. I can be a casual form of なんです, which is what had confused me.

The other points are totally valid, and I totally agree I missed a couple things. I still think the choice of “the” is wrong, though as I said I think it’s a pretty minor issue. I still wish they showed you the kanji options though!

  • It’s really a minor issue and I don’t think it’s representative of my overall feelings on the game.

  • The level of research I put into it the tweet was appropriate for a tweet, not for an article in a major game news site.

But, at the same time, I don’t think Chris had any bad intentions with the article - it was just an interesting point of the language and an odd thing to show up in an English localized game. Chris is a good dude.

Anyways, as soon as I saw it had been made into an article, I panicked because if I wanted to be more sure I was accurate, I should have looked at Japanese sources. So I did. And, thankfully, japanese google provided this article which was massively helpful:

http://www.tonan.jp/moji/10tokin/

So, this is a long article. But what it boils down to, is arguing that it is not, in fact, a hiragana と at all - but, it also argues that it is quite uncertain as to what it actually is.

It looks like he ends up feeling like the most likely explanation is that it originated from  今, which is an ateji (phonetic replacement or spelling of a kanji that is read a certain way with no regard to its meaning) for 金.

http://tonan.seesaa.net/article/31091021.html

Anyways, either way, my explanation was wrong, which I then brought up to Chris, who was nice enough to update the article.

Now, while admitting that I was inaccurate in my factual reasoning as to why it was factually wrong, the fact remains that the statement in the english version of the game - that と金 is the cursive form of a specific kanji - is wrong. Now, it appears that there’s argument as to whether the Japanese was even correct - but it’s certainly different, and less wrong than the English. Let me explain why.

Here’s the original Japanese:

In text:

この字はある漢字の崩し字なんだ、 なにか分かる?

So, let’s break this down. First, I’ll translate the easy nouns.  字 (ji) is character (it can mean other stuff but that’s most likely in this context).  漢字 (kanji) is… kanji.  

The other noun is 崩し字 (kuzushiji) , which can sort of theoretically be translated to “cursive” or “simplified” character - but it doesn’t mean cursive in really the same sense that western cursive is used. There’s a ton of possible ways to write a character in  崩し字 - really, anything that is written using a brush and omits or simplifies strokes is technically 崩し字. Which is why, in the articles above, he dislikes the argument that tokin originates from a  崩し字 of  金, because while it could be a theoretically VERY cavalier 崩し字, it really drastically simplifies the kanji (far moreso than the other shoji pieces simplify the same kanji). But I’ll give that that’s a lot of detail the game can’t provide so I’ll let it get away with cursive form :)

Okay, so we have:

この character はある kanji の cursive form なんだ、なにか分かる?

Next, the other easy stuff.  この is this.  なんだ is “what is”.  なにか means something. So we get:

This character  はある kanji の cursive form what is、something 分かる?

Last we’ll do verbs and particles. I won’t explain particles because they’re a whole section of Japanese grammar that’s not really pertinent and is somewhat complex but suffice it to say they are short “grammatical helpers” that mark the grammatical function of words in sentences, sort of like helping verbs and articles in English. Anyways, the verbs here are ある (aru), which means to be/exist (specially referring to inanimate objects), and  分かる (wakaru) which means a lot of different things in english, but usually it means do you understand or know. The only other things are  は, which is a particle marking a new topic of conversation in a sentence, and has no real translatable direct equivalent in english, and の, which indicates that a noun possesses or modifies another noun. So, without any word rearrangement, you end up with:

“This character is cursive form of kanji what is, something understand?”

Which is a little intentionally obtuse but some simple rearrangement gets you something closer to english:

“This character is cursive form of what kanji, something understand?”

This is all you can really infer from transliteration. To turn this into actual English we need to start making value judgments and doing actual translation. So to get English out of this, the first and easiest thing to do is to realize that  なにか分かる is just ellipsing the subject, which is probably the student who the teacher is asking the question to. Also, you need your helping verbs and pronouns, and the nanika wakaru is more of an expression, so it’s probably closer to “do you know?”. All of that is interpretation and at the translator’s discretion, but it’s necessary to end up with something that’s vaguely English.

For the first part of the sentence, you are almost actually at a readable fragment, you just need an article, and here’s where I think the translation goes wrong. It uses “the”, when it clearly should use “a”. 

Why? “the” implies singularity and absoluteness. “the” implies that there is a single, or at the very least primary answer to the question “what is the cursive form of this kanji”, and that that single answer is the one they are looking for. But any Japanese person will tell you that 1) there are many cursive forms of Kanji and 2) that the “primary” cursive form of the 金, if it existed, would not be what is seen on the shogi piece. In fact, the very next slide conflicts with the usage of “the”, because it shows three different purported cursive forms of  金- and again, whether tokin factually is a cursive form of 金 is debatable, but that is at least asserted in the Japanese text, too!

So, I think a closer translation (and closer to the original Japanese structure) would be something like: “This character is a cursive form of a kanji - do you know which?” If you wanted to make it flow better, you could go from there. Something like “Can you tell me which cursive kanji this character originated from?”

Now, you might argue a simple swapping of “a” for “the” isn’t a big deal. And you would be right to some extent. But I certainly would argue that it undermines the coolest part of these little quiz games, which is that they actually teach you things! You could imagine someone playing this game, then later picking up Japanese, seeing a hiragana “to”, and telling their teacher “oh I learned that’s a cursive “kin!”” to be greeted by a frowning head-nod no. One of the coolest parts of the persona games is the opportunity to learn about Japanese, and it’s a bummer that it gives you misinformation by way of a relatively simple error.

But -  I actually think the bigger translation issues, and the reason why I think a bigger change should have been made to this question, is in the answers. So, this is actually even a tricky question in japanese! While searching for japanese sources, I actually found this blog:

http://karigezima.com/archives/25714


which says:

将棋経験者ならすぐに分かる問題です。

将棋してない人からしたら難しい…かな?(´・ω・`;)

Or - “Shogi players will instantly know the answer. But people who don’t play shogi probably screamed about how hard it is, huh?”

So yeah - this is a tricky question in Japanese. But, in typical multiple choice test fashion, it actually has something to help you out:

So here’s the answer options in Japanese. Let’s compare them with the english options:

So, to start things off, the question is asking about the cursive form of kanji - which you need to be able to see the kanji to determine, but the english version doesn’t let you see the freaking kanji! And, a single English word might correspond to multiple kanji. For instance, divination as a kanji could just as easily be 占 as  卜. And, while it’s more of a technicality because  金 is certainly the most obvious kanji that means “gold”, gold could also mean  ,  釛 ,  ,  鎏 ,  鏐 . Those might not be things that a sane person would think of when given the option “gold”, the fact remains that the game is supposed to be translated into English and you shouldn’t need to know Kanji to understand and answer questions correctly in it!


But I think the bigger deal here is that you actually miss out on the “dummy” option. See, because while “Divination” is technically what 卜 means, it is not an option in the Japanese version because of that - it’s there because it’s looks almost exactly like ト, which is the same sound, “to”, in the other major japanese character system, Katakana.

So for a Japanese speaker, you instantly see that dumb middle option and rule it out because it’s clearly a trick answer for dummies. It’s even maybe a little chuckle-worthy. You just miss out on all of that in english.

Because it’s so untranslatable to someone who doesn’t understand Japanese, and because really the relevant point here narratively and symbolically is that the lowest shogi piece can promote into the Gold General, and how that ties into the idea of neauvau riche, I think it would have been nice to just ask something like “This piece indicates when a pawn is promoted to what rank”? It’s a bit further from the Japanese, but again, if you can’t convey the meaning in Japanese without explaining what kanji are, how they are simplified, and make the answers make sense visually to players, maybe just get at the heart of the issue and the bigger narrative point.

Anyways, long story short - I still think this could have been better, but I’m glad it existed in a way because it was very much a learning opportunity for me!

After posting this, someone added a helpful comment:

Hey, Nate. MDB again. Thought I could lend my expertise, since it’s always better to have two experts tackling a problem like this. Here are some notes:

なんだ (nanda) does not mean “what is.” It’s the short/informal form of the phrase なのです (nano desu), which is simply a way to end a clause that ends in a noun while also inserting your personal feelings into the phrase. In effect, it’s a verbal punctuation mark. If that sounds terribly confusing, that’s because it’s Japanese, one of the most complicated languages on Earth.

The word ある (aru) is, as you said, a verb meaning “to be/exist.” And it’s true that placing a verb before a noun makes it a relative clause. So you technically could say that the translation for ある漢字 is “the kanji that exists.” But that extremely inefficient and redundant. You’d get the exact same meaning from taking the “aru” out, so there’s no reason for it to be there.

Which is why! The word “aru” before a noun is used to indicate a particular one of those things. So ある日 means “someday,” ある人 means “somebody,” etc. So the proper translation for ある漢字 would be “some (particular) kanji.”

なにか (nanika) does indeed mean “something” or “anything,” but in the particle か (ka) indicates a request for specific information. When asking a question with a yes or no answer, you use かどうか (kadouka). Examples:

「いくらか分かる?」(Ikura ka wakaru?) “Do you know how much (it is)?”

「どこにあるか全く知らんねんで。」(Doko ni aru ka mattaku wakannen de.) “I ain’t got a clue where it is.”

なに (nani), as I’m sure you know, means “what,” so when the teacher asks, “Nani ka wakaru?” she’s not saying, “Something understand?” it’s more like, “Do you know what (it is)?”

Finally, in your post, you accidentally omitted part of the Japanese version. You wrote:

「 この字はある漢字の崩し字なんだ 、なにか分かる?」

But the text in the game actually says:

「 この字はある漢字の崩し字なんだけど、なにか分かる?」

It’s not super important, but it still holds a minor significance that has to be considered depending on how you want to convey the character. Personally, I like to translate けど (kedo) to “Even though”, but the word “but” works just as well. It’s much more complicated than that, so just role with it, for now. Get it? “Role”? ‘Cause it’s an RPG? Um…anyway.

When you put it all together, there are several ways you could translate the sentence, but it turns out the way it was localized was actually pretty faithful: “This character is the cursive form of a specific kanji. Do you know which one it is?” A little verbose compared to the original, but grammatically, very close!

Hope that helps!

Thanks! That’s helpful :D It’s good to talk about this stuff.

You’re right about  なんだ in this context, for sure. I can be a casual form of なんです, which is what had confused me.

The other points are totally valid, and I totally agree I missed a couple things. I still think the choice of “the” is wrong, though as I said I think it’s a pretty minor issue. I still wish they showed you the kanji options though!

Dark Souls & Easy Modes: A Counter-Argument

I recently read a very good article arguing for the existence of an “easy mode” for Souls games.

While reading, I noticed that I agreed with the contour of his arguments and understood the motivation. And yet, I disagreed with a fundamental part of his premise - it is both presumptuous and abandons the responsibilities of both the author and the audience.

I’ll go into this in more detail, but the combat mechanics serve to reinforce a central underpinning of Dark Souls, which is an emotional arc that is reinforced through story, mechanics, art and lore.

First - where I agree with his arguments. The arguments against an easy mode that he is refuting are, actually, bad arguments against an easy mode. The first is ludicrous - I do not need to die repeatedly to appreciate an area in Dark Souls. In fact, the effect of the difficulty in Dark Souls is exactly why can appreciate combat areas without dying!

I also think that players should be able to consume games as they like. I don’t believe that there is something morally wrong about changing a piece of art. Where I disagree is about who that rests upon.

To underpin my objection to his argument, I’d like to talk about the role I think difficulty plays in Dark Souls. Many critics assume that the difficulty in Dark Souls primarily exists to force you to reckon with and master its mechanics. I think this is partly true, but mostly false. The reality is, no matter how well you have mastered the mechanics of the game, you can make progress in Dark Souls. The entire RPG conceit of levelling up and coming back to beat a boss later goes against the core concept that mastery must be used to beat bosses. Additionally, the social mechanics, and the summoned AI companions all provide workarounds for mechanical mastery. You could play through a Souls game, blissfully ignoring all mechanics, sheltered by players online. So the argument that demanding mastery of mechanics is the primary reason for Souls’ difficulty seems to be countered by the game itself, which provides many opportunities to circumvent mastery and still make progress.

Additionally, if pure mastery were the goal in a Souls game, I would argue that the games are extremely poorly paced - the RPG progression insures that the first areas in the game are often the most difficult, packed with the most frequent and seemingly unfair deaths. A game that was truly about mastery would layer increasing challenge against an undeveloping character - something like Titan Souls. Or Devil May Cry, though that does offer a soft progression system.

Instead, I see Dark Souls’ difficulty as a narrative paintbrush - it exists to reinforce the hostility of the world and elicit an emotional response on the part of the player. Everything in the game is designed to elicit a sense of anxiety, loneliness, and fear at being a stranger in a strange land. You are unwelcome. You should not be here. As you learn to navigate an area, you become more familiar with it - what once caused anxiety is now commonplace. You have made a foreign place your home.

That emotional arc proceeds on at least three levels - in individual encounters, in whole areas, and in the game as a whole. Your first encounter with a new creature often ends in death. The emotional journey is reinforced by every mechanical and artistic choice made in the game - the unsettling enemy designs that frighten at first, the spare music and echoing sound effects, the sense of extreme loneliness in a game with very few talking characters (and most of whom seem… not entirely there), and even the lack of any in-game map.  And, yes, the progression systems that ultimately make the end of the game easier than the beginning.

So, when people say that the difficulty itself is integral to Dark Souls, I think they are mistaken. The game’s difficulty is a tool to elicit an emotional response on the part of the player, not an end in itself.

Which leads me to why I disagree with what seems like a central supposition of his article - that the game should provide an easy mode.

I don’t, actually, think there’s anything wrong with wanting to play an easy version of Dark Souls. I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with publishing editions of books that remove “difficult” content. However, asking (or demanding) that the creator of the original work provide a compromised version of their vision to suit individual tastes presumes a responsibility on the artist that their art must appeal to the masses. It is demanding that the author not only share their vision, but also write the Cliff’s Notes. Either it fails to understand the artistic value of the mechanical aspects of the games, or it presumes that game creators’ role is to cater to the whims of their audience rather than express what they want to express. I can’t get behind this.

However! I said I agree that players should be able to enjoy games as the wish! And I do believe that.

What I think many of the arguments for an easy mode fail to recognize is the role and responsibility of the audience. There, in fact, does exist an easy mode, along with hundreds of other user customizations - you can go download them on the Dark Souls Nexus: https://www.nexusmods.com/darksouls/mods/top/?. Some of these can be used to lower the difficulty of the game, make monsters stand still, etc. There are maps available online that ease the sense of anxiety exploring new areas. These are all things that the audience has done, creative works of interpretation that a community has done in response to the creator’s original vision.

So - in short - there’s nothing wrong with wanting to play an easy mode in Dark Souls. There is something wrong with asking the creator to compromise their vision in order to deliver it into your hands. The artists responsibility is to communicate their vision, not necessarily to make sure that we all see it.

Numerical Tuning Lessons

At some point, if you’re doing system design, or anything that butts up against system design, you’re going to end up looking at formulas in an excel spreadsheet. I’ve spent plenty of time over the past 10 years looking at these and tweaking games and figured some lessons I’ve learned would help other people.

Lesson 1: Get Exposed

This is a fairly simple one, but important - if you’re working on a big team, and you aren’t an engineer, make sure the engineers expose as many tuning variables and formulas to you as possible. It is your responsibility, and should be your goal, to understand fully how the game’s systems work. Additionally, the ability to A/B test different values is massively helpful when trying to grok how numerical changes effect the feel of gameplay. If those values or formulas are hidden in code that you don’t have access to, you can’t really fully understand how things really work.

This has worked different ways on different games I’ve worked on - on Dungeon Siege III, for instance, I owned the .cpp files that defined the RPG systems and the numerical rules for them. On other games, these have been exposed in data tables or through script. And, in the worst cases, they’ve been hidden in code that I didn’t have access to and had to look over an engineers shoulder as they made changes for me.

The cases where these worked best were where I could fully see and understand all the details of how the system worked and could freely tweak and iterate on my own. You can’t tune a system you can’t edit, and you can’t truly understand a system that you can’t see. Get those values and formulas exposed! 

Lesson 2: Minimize Floating Variables (or: Only Tune What You Want)

Games, especially RPGs, typically have lots of numbers that interact in complex ways. There are the obvious numbers - HP, damage, statistics, and then there are “out-of-game” values, like expected time to kill a monster, power growth per level, monster kills required per level, time per level, etc, that players never directly see but that influence the relationships between those values.

You should understand the mathematical relationships between the in-game values and the tuned values, and ideally set up formulas in something like an excel sheet, so that you can isolate exactly the variable you want to tune and not affect other things - or else you risk ending up with a “man in the shower” problem, where you tune one number, which causes an overshoot in a second system, when forces you to retune that system, which causes an effect on the first number, etc.

The biggest mistake I have found is that people often want to tune the values that players see, but these are often the least important values in the game! Oftentimes, it’s the “feel” values, things like “how many hits does it take to kill a monster at equal level? At one level above?” are the real questions, and people try to tune values like HP to realize those goals. Instead, I would recommend never tuning values like HP directly and instead setting your equations to allow you to directly change the “feel” values - to make those the knobs that you have to turn - and then letting your formulas spit out the in-game values for things like health and damage. Note that these references can get a little bit circular, and so you may need to arbitrarily set some value - for instance, health is often based on a player’s ability to deal damage * expected kill time, but a player’s ability to deal damage at a given level could just as well be definied from a monster’s expected HP. You may end up just deciding “A level 1 player will do 100 damage per second” or “A level 1 standard enemy will have 100 HP” and that will scale all of the numbers in your system. But from that point forward, you should only tune the individual “feel” values you want to hit directly, rather than tuning the player-visible values in a way that will have knock-on effects in other systems.

Lesson 3: Make Big Changes

This is a pretty common lesson shared by lots of system designers, but figured I’d share it here too - especially when you are doing early tuning, double or halve numbers. Don’t nudge values by 5-10%, because it’s too hard to see the changes and it takes you much longer to understand the effect your change is having. Additionally, it can save a ton of time. If you double a number and it doesn’t seem crazy, you just saved yourself a lot of time slowly nudging up to the doubled number. If it does seem crazy, you can try the halfway point between the doubled and the original value.

Lesson 4: Start with Math, End with Feel

Math, spreadsheets, etc. all make a great starting point for tuning, but never trust that math will produce a game that feels good. For one, your math may be wrong. There are probably variables you aren’t accounting for, especially in a game with any action-ey elements. Player skill is a thing. Math is super useful for establishing a baseline, but never, ever trust that your math is correct when playing the game is telling you something different. Additionally, math isn’t going to make your boss feel good, and late in the day, don’t be afraid to change things outside of your formulas to get the feel changes you want - but DO save those changes for late in the process, when you’re sure that your core feel variables (like your time to kill) aren’t likely to change. Otherwise, those big changes can completely overwrite or blow away your fine tuning changes.

Thoughts: Hyper Light Drifter

I just finished Hyper Light Drifter! I want to start actually putting down thoughts when I finish games and they are fresh in my memory, so here goes.

Warning: there will be minor spoilers. But there’s not a ton of story to spoil so I wouldn’t be too worried.

Overall

I really enjoyed the game. If your game’s premise is “Top Down Metroidvania + Intense Action Combat + Beautiful 2D Art” and you deliver at all (and HLD does), I will like your game. HLD delivers. I liked it a lot and would strongly recommend it to anyone who likes tough action games and exploration/Metroidvania games.

Highlights

  • Level Design - The level design was just fantastic. Navigating the levels was easy, there were quite a few gorgeous, well placed vistas, the levels were designed to make your navigation abilities (dashing, chain dashing, etc.) super fun. Secrets were abundant and well telegraphed, and about halfway through I began to realize the language that the game uses for secrets (there is a little symbol the game uses in most places! Keep an eye open!).

    Additionally, it’s really impressive how the game made such thorough use of relatively few tools in enough varied ways to keep them interesting! There were very few one-off gimmicks in levels and the game never really broke its rules.

    The game also made great use of the Metroidvania trick of showing you things that you can’t get to yet, to pique your curiosity and help you understand the flow of the level without making it overly linear. Particularly, the doors that only open when you’ve collected ¾ pieces of the triforce for a given area (it’s a triforce okay) provide a great leading tool for the player without overly constraining them.

    Honestly this game is a master class in 2D top down level design.
  • Art - I wouldn’t be surprised if this is what drove most people to the game. It’s what drove me to it! But the art is just gorgeous, the palette tasteful (and more important varied - each of the main areas has a very strong aesthetic that is very different from the others), the animation is punchy and expressive. Just a gorgeous game.

    I believe super strongly that  “art style > hi-tech graphics” and this is a stellar example of that.
  • Music and Sound - The music is sparse and ambient for most of the game, which is why when it DOES kick in, it’s very intense and matches the emotion the game is trying to build quite well. When you hit an impressive vista, or a tough fight, and the music swells, it does exactly what great game music needs to do - works in harmony to make you feel what the game’s trying to express.

    The sounds is great on it’s own, as well, but also provides great gameplay feedback, which is something I felt other aspects of the game could have done better - but the sound nailed this.
  • Standard Enemy Design - The bestiary in each of the areas felt extremely different, worked really well together, AND had a ton of personality! Their gameplay and art worked together fantastically as well - the swoopy bird guys mechanics instantly sold why I couldn’t slash them when they were flying, and led me to try to shoot them out of the air - when it worked, I was thrilled! The frog ninjas instantly read “frog ninja” which, besides being awesome, led me to think “i bet that frog’s gonna throw a shuriken” before he did, and that felt awesome!

    It’s pretty rare that you can spawn a bunch of enemies in a room, let their AI drive them, and get decent gameplay. These enemies are so well designed that it works.
  • Atmosphere, Character and Mystery - I’ve felt like designers, especially narrative designers, can overemphasize the importance of the player understanding what is happening in the game world. Instead, I think it’s actually much more important that the player understands the big themes, the “flavor” of the world, and the details are actually often unimportant and boring - in fact, not knowing them, leaving them mysterious, are much more engaging than spelling them out. This is part of the magic of Dark Souls, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, and Hyper Light Drifter really succeeds.

    Additionally, the decision to make the friendly NPCs animal people, and to have them tell little visual stories, was brilliant. It made me care about the world far, far more effectively than dialog would have.

Critiques

  • The Bosses - The difficulty level of the boss fights felt pretty all over the place. The bird boss was a super easy one-shot, and the west boss was pretty darn difficult. That’s normally fine, but it didn’t mesh well with the overall area difficulty to produce a “standard path” - I found the west area’s standard enemies to be easier than the bird area’s, for instance.

    Also, I felt the bosses tended to highlight some of the control and feedback issues I’ll raise below.
  • Controls - For the most part, the game controlled beautifully, felt fluid, smooth and precise. But a few issues really marred that:
    • Dashing - The game has either a hidden cooldown, input lag, or just a bug with dashing. It felt like there was a cooldown potentially after 3 dashes in a row (talking about standard dashes here - not chain dashes) but it was very unclear what in particular triggered the cooldown, how long you needed to wait in between dashes to clear the cooldown, or really just why sometimes you’d press the dash button and nothing would happen.
    • Hit Reacts - Hit reacts on players are fine. Long hit reacts are cool. But, it felt like you regained movement control of your character after a hit react before you regained the ability to dash - I’d need to really dig in to figure out what felt wrong here - but in general, I find that it’s clearer when there’s a very firm hierarchy of actions - e.g. you can always do action A if you can do action B. If I can dash while moving, and cancel attacks with dashes, I’m going to assume that any time I can move I should be able to dash. It didn’t feel that way - but I could have been wrong.
  • Non-audio Feedback - While there were strong indicators when e.g. you got hit (including massive hit stop), some indicators felt missing - for example, after firing the shotgun, you have to cock it to fire again (your character automatically cocks it after a time, but other actions, like dashing, can delay your ability to cock it). How do you know if it’s cocked? Well, there’s a sound. That’s it, as far as I can tell. No animation, no UI indicator, nothing. For something as critical as when your buttons will work vs. do nothing, that’s not good.
  • Perspective & Depth Perception - Overall the game did a great job with this, but because it uses an orthogonal projection (there’s no foreshortening) and because some enemies and objects are quite tall, trying to tell what I could and couldn’t walk “behind” was often kinda frustrating. There’s not a great solve for this IMO, but it’s one of the drawbacks of their otherwise super super cool art style.
  • Visual Noise & Getting Lost - It was way too easy to lose yourself onscreen in chaotic firefights. Additionally, the visual they used for Dashes didn’t do enough to help situate the player onscreen AFTER the dash - I really needed to know where I ended up, and the visual did a better job of showing where I WAS then where I ended up. This problem was especially pronounced in the bird area, where some of the bird-man attacks used the same color palate as the drifter’s dash visuals.
  • Minigames - The Soccer and Dash minigames were awful. Don’t ask or encourage players to engage in a repetitive stress inducing “repeat this thing 800 times” activity. Especially don’t reward it. Please. These things would have worked as cute little side activities (the 100 dash challenge was OK, the soccer game should have just been an easy little goof).
  • RPG Progression - Overall I thought this worked well, but I did feel that the “big upgrades” (the sword and dash upgrades) shouldn’t have been priced the same as the “little upgrades” (the gun and health pack upgrades). The sword upgrades and dash upgrades were way more “fun” - it felt like the gun, bomb and health pack upgrades were the wrong choice - even if maybe they were pretty good gameplay-wise.
  • Balance - The shotgun, IMO, was stupid overpowered on bosses and the “dodging through projectile” upgrade on the dash shouldn’t have refilled your ammo - the game should have done more to force you to use the sword on bosses more often.

Game Dev Lessons: Neverwinter Nights 2

I thought it would be a fun exercise to reflect back on some of the games I’ve worked on and think about some things that the experience taught me, or that in retrospect had interesting things to learn. To keep it focused, I’m going to stick to 5 things, but I may do more in the future!

Context: I was the first QA tester at Obsidian on Neverwinter Nights 2, eventually became lead tester when the QA team expanded, and by the end of the project moved into production as an assistant producer. So these aren’t really design lessons so much, though they are development lessons!


  • Teach Producers to do stuff - Producers are support folks, true. But producers should learn some aspects of your tools and development process for two important reasons:
    • Understanding how people do their jobs makes you a better producer and helps you make better decisions.
    • Producers being able to pick up the slack in implementation can be a huge help in the 11th hour. On NWN2, the executive producer and I took over most of the implementation of the front-end GUI in XML, and our ability to do that meant that other, much more challenging aspects of the UI, were able to be implemented. Without us handling that, the people who were more capable to do the heavy lifting couldn’t have dedicated their time to more important things.
  • Being a Lead is hard - Managing people is really, really hard. This is where I personally came face to face with the Peter principle - the idea that people get promoted until they hit a job they are incapable of doing. In the game industry, you can learn that when you promote your best programmer to Lead Programmer, you lose your best programmer and get a mediocre lead in his place.

    In my case, I went from a skilled, experienced tester to the manager of a team of almost 20 people, many of whom had no QA experience, and I had basically no training or management experience. That was hard and I did not do a very good job. I feel bad for the testers that worked under me.

    I don’t know that there was a better option in my case, but it definitely made me respect the idea that there should be a path for promotion for folks who excel at their job but don’t make good managers, or who don’t have the managerial training or experience to manage a large team.
  • Copy the right things - After I became a producer, I was assigned to work on the UI. Because we didn’t have a real UI designer, and we were getting very negative feedback on the UI, I was assigned to work with engineering to see what we could do to improve things in the time we had.

    The first thing I did? Open WoW and figure out why dragging buttons to different hotbar slots felt fine in WoW and was awful in our game. It felt extremely finicky, and you’d drag an icon went you meant to use it all the time.

    Turns out, there’s a dead zone in WoW - about 50% of the size of the icon - outside of which you have to drag your cursor with the button held down in order to “pick up” the icon. Windows has this, too, but it’s much smaller (and clicking and dragging feel worse in Windows than in WoW for this reason IMO). This dead zone makes the difference between a click and drag and a click to use the ability much more pronounced, and stealing it fixed the problem.

    When you have a problem that is tricky to solve, you should figure out the “state of the art” solution before you try to roll your own. Copying is okay, as long as you copy the right things.
  • Feedback is King - There were major feedback problems with NWN2 before ship (and after ship, but before ship is was far worse). Because NWN2 simulates D&D, and characters are running turn timers every X seconds, players would often select an action (like casting a spell) and the characters wouldn’t actually do anything until their next round came up. The game felt broken as a result because you would click to cast a spell, and not tell whether the game ate your input or whether you were just waiting for the next turn.

    The solution ended up being to add a UI element that shows the next queued action - your queued action icon would change when you gave a new command, which was all the information that you needed to know that the game did hear you and was just waiting for your next turn.

    The gameplay feedback that we got after implementing this was massively more positive - and it was the first of many times I learned that UI, sound, and animation feedback in response to actions is as if not more important than issues like game balance, cool loot, and great story.
  • Nobody Reads Design Docs - This was the first time I learned another lesson that would be repeated over and over again - if a design doc is more than a page or two, nobody will read it. It can be useful for yourself to catalog what you were thinking, and you can send it to a publisher to sate their hunger for milestone deliverables.

    But almost nobody actually reads docs, whether to comb through them to distill a list of actual actionable, or to get all the implementation details you’ve put in there - you still have to go explain and discuss everything you want with them anyways.

    Maybe your experiences are different, but this was the first time of many that I learned that generating a doc to “throw over the wall” at implementers - or to get meaningful feedback on the possibility of implementing the documented content - doesn’t work.

Engineer Anxiety vs. Designer Freedom

Update: There were some formatting issues that caused this to copy over wrong from my old blog and it was missing some words. Fixed now!


Every team has its own interdepartmental relationships - some more dramatic than others - but something that has been an issue on every project I’ve worked on has been the way that Designer desire for implementation freedom, expressive tools, and power has conflicted with Engineer anxiety over what the hell Design is doing.

First, I want to say that I am ultimately sympathetic with the Engineers in these situations.

Engineers (when working most effectively) build systems, not content. And those systems have to be built to support the content before the content is built - meaning that there’s an inherent degree to which Engineers on games are never really sure what exact spec they’re building to.

  • Design, on the other hand, has the freedom to mold and adapt their Designs after they’ve got the systems. Engineers can do that, too, but it risks messing up all the other stuff Design’s already built on their system, so it’s always an extremely risky, dangerous proposition.

Engineers get stuck holding the bag when Design’s shit breaks.

Engineers understand the guts underneath the abstractions they are presenting to Design, and know just how deep we can dig ourselves when those abstractions leak (super good article on leaky abstractions over at Joel on Software).

BUT I also know that there’s been pretty much a direct correlation between the quality of the games I’ve worked on and the extent to which the technology allowed the designers to directly implement their vision through powerful tools vs. being constrained by limited systems.

If I knew the absolute solution to this I’d be the most successful game director ever, not a designer. But I do know some things that have helped:

  • Tons and tons of direct communication back and forth between Design and Engineering. The more a good Engineering team knows, the LESS they worry. One of the awesome design principles at Blizzard is to avoid the grand reveal - basically don’t work in secret and then show everyone else your work, after you’ve finished, with a big “tada!”. This is important among other designers, but it’s ALSO hugely important between the departments, and especially with engineering. They can think about how to make what you want to do work much better if they know what you want to do earlier.
  • Engineers need to take the time to explain the “why” to designers, not just the “what”. One of the worst things you can tell a designer is “Don’t do that. That’s expensive.” The end result of that admonishment is usually the designer tries it out, sees that the framerate is fine, and assumes that you’re just being a worrywart engineer again.

    Instead, if you say (for example), “Overlapping collision is expensive because when the game has to do a line of sight check, the overlapping geometry makes the collision checks much more complex”, you give Design something to work with. A fundamental requirement of design is to work with what you’re given to come up with solutions - and given that information, the designer may say, “Oh! Well, it actually isn’t important that the collision matches so closely to the object. If we really simplify the collision geometry, can that help mitigate the problem?” Again, just as an example.

    Design doesn’t want to make shit run bad! It’s just that we rarely understand the complexities of why the stuff we makes runs like crap unless you tell us. And once we know the why, we can make good decisions in the future.
  • Engineers should make systems, not content. Engineering time is crazy valuable. Designer time is less valuable. Good engineering work is elegant, robust and built to handle many cases and situations. Design work is by nature mostly one-off. Subtle bugs often never show up in design content (unless you’re making an MMO where that content is going to live for 9 years, but the general point remains).

    The end result being that Engineers should generally specialize as force multipliers by making systems that are bulletproofed, extensible, and used many times by many designers. Leave the specifics of what a given AI does, how the UI controls are laid out, etc. to designers. Engineers shouldn’t have to spend time touching that shit.
  • Believe in Tech Designers - Engineers should find allies on the design team, who are either technically minded or have some sort of CS/Programming/Engineering background, and work with them to communicate things to design. Some of the best, most efficient teams I’ve worked on have leveraged highly technical designers to work in-between code and content to make frameworks for other designers.

    I’ll use an example from a game that I worked on for a while that was cancelled. It was going to have a really neat strategic layer that was mostly paper-designed out, and because of the team culture on that project was going to be 100% implemented in code. One of the most skilled gameplay programmers on the team worked for at least a month, maybe more on the system, only to be taken off of it to work on more critical features.

    Ultimately, the strategic feature never got implemented and the game was cancelled before any more work was done on it. Had that time been spent instead on implementing script features,  extensible, data-driven systems, etc. such that technical designers could have used those basic features to implement the specifics of the strategic game, the engineer work would likely have been reusable to make other aspects of the game better.
  • Designers: Love the Design, not the Implementation. Sometimes, a designer’s implementation is good enough for 80%, but it needs some code refactoring and replacing design implementation with code to really shine. As long as the design is established and proven in prototype, feel free to get advice from code on how they can make what you’re doing more efficient and bulletproof.
  • Designers: Learn from Engineers. Learn to read C/C++ at a super basic level, and sit with Engineers when they are debugging things. Learn the specifics of how the code actually works in sections that are critical to what you work on. This can be hugely helpful and really demystifies the kinds of bugs where everything looks like you set it up right in the editor but it just doesn’t work in-game.

Anyways, again, not perfect solutions but some things that have worked for me. Also, as a general rule, I’ve found that the best Engineers I’ve worked with want to nurture and enable designer creativity, and the best designers want to make things that are technically sound and are curious and interested in how the game actually works. So the departments are at their best when they are working together, not acting as stern parent and rebellious child.

What is Gameplay?

My personal theory of fun centers around gameplay. I don’t think that gameplay is the only reason why we play games, and I certainly don’t think it’s the only reason why we enjoy interactive or digital media. However, it is

the clear point of distinction between games and other forms of media (books, movies, interactive movies), and it’s an aspect of games that is the primary responsibility of game designers. And because that’s my job, I selfishly consider it a  fundamental aspect of fun.

So, what is gameplay?

First, I think it’s important to define clearly what a game is, and to differentiate it from other game-like things. To me, the critical aspects of a game are:

  • There are two types of rules: first, a series of actions are defined as valid for players. These can be presented as the valid inputs allowed to players in a video game, or as a list of things you can’t do in a sport, or a list of how each piece moves in a board game.

    Second, you have rules that determine how the game state is updated based on the cumulative actions of players. These rules can be relatively simple (Chess) or very complex (American Football).

Given that definition of a game, I would then define gameplay as the feedback loop between the actions of one or more players and the rules, with each player (or the only player, in the case of a single-player game) attempting to make choices that optimize their outcome in whatever success metric the game uses. That feedback loop relies on players understanding the actions available and forecasting the effects of actions to determine which will be most or least successful.

I think this definition is helpful because it starts to take apart things that have traditionally been a part of games (e.g. Puzzles) and sets them apart from core gameplay. Most puzzles in games don’t really rely on gameplay - when you’re trying to find the right item to open a door in an adventure game, there isn’t really a ruleset to rely on or a gamestate to update. If there is, it’s so simplistic (Actions: each item in your inventory! Rules: binary success or failure based on which item you picked!) that the “gameplay” becomes trivial. Or, the results of the actions are unclear, and the goal is to figure out which action is correct, not to optimize the results across many different valid options.

Raid Boss Dissection: FFXIV, Thordan Extreme

Because I am obviously much closer to the development process on WoW, I don’t really get the opportunity to dissect our fights as a player in the same way that I do for FFXIV. So I thought it’d be a fun exercise, and might be interesting for people to read, to have an MMO Raid Boss designer’s PoV into the design of another game’s raid boss.

Note this is pretty casual and I didn’t spend a ton of time going into depth and preparing information for this, so if you do find this interesting let me know and I may spend more time on things like this in the future. Also please comment if you have any questions/arguments/corrections/etc!

Fight Info

First, here’s a link to a video of the encounter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuDTxp2iedg

Here’s a link to a video guide, which explains many of the mechanics in detail (with lots of bad puns):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pZ5MfWpOTw

Next, some things, if you haven’t played FFXIV but have played WoW, that you should know:

  • All “real” raids in FFXIV are 8 players, and groups are typically 2 Tanks, 2 Healers, 4 DPS. There is also a type of content where three raids join together in an instance, but this is generally for more casual content, sort of parallel to WoW’s LFR, but with only one difficulty.
  • Personal defensive cooldowns, and especially external healer cooldowns, are pretty minimal in FFXIV. Overall, players are substantially weaker in FFXIV than they are in WoW - or, maybe more accurately, players have much less opportunity to use abilities to counteract mechanics.
  • FFXIV has no dungeon journal, very few boss emotes, no support for UI addons, and even damage meters require a 3rd party program that is technically against the ToS.
  • Players can be freely resurrected in the fight when they die, but suffer a stacking -max health and damage done debuff for one minute after being resurrected. Additionally, the resurrection spells have exceedingly long cast times (8s, interrupted by moving) and while you can use Swiftcast to raise someone instantly(which makes it instant), Swiftcast is on a 60s cooldown.

As a quick breakdown, here’s the general fight structure. Note the timing is based on the first video linked, DPS can change it somewhat:

  • 0:00 - 1:40 : Introduction to Fight Mechanics
  • 1:50 - 2:05: Dance 1 - Chains, Area Denial, Soak Towers,
  • 2:05 - 2:28: Sir Zephirin: DPS Check/Mercy Rule 1
  • 2:28 - 2:38: Dodging “divebombs”, moving in to position to fight the brothers
  • 2:38 - 4:08: The brothers + dragoon fall off damage
  • 4:08 - 4:28: Dance 2 - Ice Bombs, Charges, Growing Area Denial + Knockback
  • 4:28 - 5:14: Dance 3 (World in Flames + Player targeted missiles) + Burndown
  • 5:14 - 5:51: ULTIMATE ATTACCCCKKKKK!!!! (plus little breather)
  • 5:51 - 6:52: Dance 4 - Healer Stun + Line Meteor + Tank Buster + Look Away + Raid Damage
  • 6:52 - 7:41: Dance 5 - Soak Towers + Look Away + World In Flames, Growing Area Denial, Knockback + Meteor
  • 7:41 - 8:30: Dance 6 - Lightning + Divebomb + Charge + Dragoon Fall Off + Meteor
  • 8:30 - 9:27: Dance 7 - Chains + Large Player Targeted Area Denial + Player Targeted Missiles + Ice Bombs + Pie Wedges
  • Rest of Fight: Burndown w/ Ramping AoE Damage

Wow! That looks like a whole lot of junk! At first, when I was looking at guides to this fight, it looked a lot more like “mechanics vomit” than “one of the most elegantly designed and well tuned boss fights I’ve seen”. But, first appearances are deceiving - it really is an incredible boss fight.

How the hell does it work?

Consistent Visual Language

First, and this is crucial - every mechanic on the fight has a distinct visual tell - no mechanics lack visual tells, and no mechanics’ visual tells are similar.

For instance, this ring is the generic “you’re being targeted with something that’s going to go off soon” visual:

This visual is only used for two mechanics on the fight, and these are very simple avoidance mechanics - this attack, and the pie wedge slash that he uses in the beginning of the fight and in Dance 7.

The other attacks in the fight are quite distinct visually. For example, this means you are being targeted by a meteor:

This means you are being targeted by a dragoon for Falloff damage:

And so on. It would be easy for a game to try to enforce a single “you are being targeted by an effect” mechanic, and in so doing create something that is very confusing and hard to parse. Even though the huge variety of targeting visuals in the fight may seem at first overwhelming, as you progress and learn the mechanics, you appreciate being able to instantly associate a visual with a very specific game mechanic. Which leads to…

Memory, Re-use, and Clarity of Purpose

Probably the single greatest aspect of the fight: while there are a large number of phases, there are not as many mechanics as it looks at first, especially considering you’ve seen many of these in the game before.

Looking through the fight I counted 7 new mechanics, 2 of which are very simple avoidance mechanics, 6 mechanics that you’ve encountered before with different visuals, and 8 mechanics you’ve seen 100% identically before.

Now, some players will make the argument that this is lazy re-use, but on the contrary - the mechanics exist to elicit specific reactions from the players, and the quicker you can get players to understand what the intended response is, the more easily you can ask them to do complex things in reaction to combinations of mechanics.

Additionally, because they are willing to accept a large number of mechanics, each mechanic can be quite simple - a single problem with a single solution. This increases clarity of purpose, and the likelihood that players will understand what is being asked of them, as well as the likelihood that the designed solution is the solution that players will use.

A common pitfall in attempting to use too few mechanics, given a certain level of complexity you are trying to achieve, is that each mechanic has to shoulder a much larger portion of the complexity burden of the fight. This often ends up with an individual mechanic that has several elements - multiple effects, bizarre fail conditions, etc. or, fails to achieve its intended gameplay because of some gap in the design of the ability.

As a designer, each mechanic in a fight is both a tool to create interesting gameplay, and a type of problem you are asking your player to solve. While it is fun to think up crazy new mechanics, re-use has major advantages in that you can much more quickly get to the gameplay you want without having to re-teach players the mechanic.

Organic Complexity & Player vs. Designer Fun

It’s fun to design new mechanics. But something that’s more fun to design isn’t necessarily more fun to play. Sometimes, clever combinations of existing mechanics can be just as interesting as a new mechanic.

For example, a trick that floored me when I saw it in the fight was very simple: target a meteor at a player, and then knock all the player back in a common direction from a single point shortly before the meteor detonates. Additionally, hitting the wall will kill you. Each of those mechanics is incredibly simple - seen in numerous boss fights in MMOs. But the combination requires a very different reaction - typically, your instinct as a player after having been knocked back is to run as quickly as possible back towards the boss. But if you do that, then the meteor doesn’t hit enough people. Your instinct when soaking a meteor is to move as little as possible to try to soak the meteor - but if you do that, you get knocked in a different direction from the clump, making soaking very difficult. You intuit that you need to prestack near the center to get knocked in the same direction, and then stand still to make sure you soak the meteor properly.

This mechanic doesn’t necessarily make a designer feel super smart when designing it. You don’t get to give your timing of 2 mechanics a special name and unique visual. But overcoming that combination of mechanics makes the

player

feel smart. Obviously you’ve designed your solution, but because the complexity originates from organic combinations of simple mechanics, the player feels like they’ve come up with the solution rather than just finding the bespoke solution that the oh-so-clever designer intended in the first place.

Lawd Have Mercy

A design value we talk about a lot on the WoW encounter design team is minimizing the time between when the player made the mistake that will kill them, and when they see that failure. We often talk about the problem with the player making a mistake at two minutes into a fight that causes them to wipe to the berserk timer, eight minutes later. This is, generally speaking, very frustrating and not fun.

The concept is similar to mercy rules in sports - points where, when one team or player gets ahead by enough, they win instantly without having to play out the rest of the match.

This problem is magnified in FFXIV because, since players can resurrect with a damage down debuff, often times you can limp through a fight, constantly losing people, only to wipe at the very end to the berserk timer.

Thordan uses two “mercy rule” strategies to end fights early when players aren’t performing well enough:

  • Heavy unavoidable party-wide damage shortly after bursts of avoidable damage, intended to finish off the party when they fail a large number of mechanics.
  • Short but fairly forgiving DPS checks through the fight that you are unlikely to pass with dead players.

Often these two are combined - for instance, the two Brothers phase of the Thordan fight deals heavy damage to individual players via the Dragoon Dives - but these also deal falloff damage. The Brothers themselves also have a large unavoidable AoE. Done correctly, healers have just enough time to heal the Dived players with a single target heal, and top off the party with an AoE, before the group damage hits. If the players targeted by Dragoon Dives do not move away from the group, then while the damage they take doesn’t change, the fact that the rest of the party also took heavy damage means that the AoE heals are not enough to save the party from the unavoidable damage. And, the brothers’ unavoidable AoE ramps in damage with each cast - ensuring that, at some point, you will wipe if you fail the mechanics badly enough. This is preferable to letting the player limp through the phase with constant damage, but wiping minutes later to a berserk timer.

Peaks and Valleys

From 5:17 to 5:50 - a full 33 seconds - there is essentially nothing happening in the encounter.

This is something that is VERY different between WoW and FFXIV, and that I know is very controversial when I talk to people about their boss fights. But personally, I really appreciate that their game will follow bursts of very strict mechanics checks (in this case, the past two minutes of dodging mechanics + dps check) with a rest period - a chance for healers to top everyone off, to raise players who have died, to take a breath. It makes the level of tension of the mechanical bursts acceptable and avoids overly stressing players out. It feels like a reward in itself - you did good, take a little break. It doesn’t need to mean you do nothing, either - for instance, they often include burndowns at the end of their fights that are mechanically very simple, but are essentially healing and DPS checks. If you made it through everything else, and you can do a decent amount of DPS, you win. These can be more or less tightly tuned - Thordan’s is very loose - but that break, to just sit back and do your rotation - feels hard earned after 8 minutes of dancing around mechanics combinations.

Additionally, they often use those moments to sell how badass the boss is with a crazy animation, which helps. It makes you feel incredibly strong that you can take out this creature that can blow up the whole world around you.

Anyways…

Hopefully this gives some insight into the thought process of designing a raid boss. I’m sure it could be more interesting or better written, but I figured just writing something beats giving up on it halfway. Please leave feedback if you liked/didn’t like/would want more!