Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft

Blizzard’s latest mega hit is their brand new collectible card game. I’ve been lucky enough to receive a beta key a few weeks ago and would like to share my impressions and any improvements that I feel like should be made. I haven’t played Blizzard’s original World of Warcraft trading card game but I believe it has had a large amount of influence on the way Hearthstone was designed. I have played a few different card games in the past and Hearthstone feels like a more simplified version of Magic the Gathering. However even though the basic concepts are very simple, Hearthstone has great depth with regards to strategy and play styles provided by each class type. I won’t go into the basics of how the game works or any particular strategy since most gaming sites have flooded the internet with those types of posts. I want to give my personal impressions of playing through the beta in the last two weeks.

So far I’ve loved the game. I’ve been looking for an entertaining card game to play and Hearthstone has hit the spot. I generally prefer playing in the constructed play mode over the arena mode. Arena feels too RNG for me, since I never get any of the useful class cards and I generally avoid things that involve RNG. However Arena has the most value in terms of gold spent. You can buy regular sets of booster packs at 100 gold or enter the Arena at 150 gold. Basically it comes down to spending 50 extra gold on the chance to make more gold, arcane dust, gold cards or an extra pack. Arena mode will always give you one pack no matter how many wins you have. I don’t feel like this is a problem since I’m not forced to do arena and people who really despise arena can just use their gold on buying regular packs. You also always break even at 7 wins and anything higher will always be a profit. However 7 wins isn’t always possible since the deck you have might just be truly awful or just run into some bad luck with card draws.

Arena mode is probably where most people will want to spend their time. The Arena mode gives you a chance to sometimes use the cards you normally wouldn’t and see some awesome combo’s that you would have normally disregarded. It’s definitely an interesting mode that lets you come up with some very random decks but I feel the randomness can sometimes be a bit too much. Sometimes you’ll get lucky and get a bunch of cards you need and other times you’ll end up with a terrible deck. Arena also throws away the 2 card limit rule and allows the player to have as many of the same cards as they want. This becomes a problem when trying to predict what an opponent can do because you can no longer rule out cards just because they used two of them. However this isn’t much of an issue if you always expect the unexpected in Arena. I think the RNG issue of getting the right cards is something that needs to be addressed.

The first solution is to allow the player to postpone some of their selections until the very end. This would allow players to return to that selection with a better idea of how their deck will work. I’m not sure how many selections they can postpone but I think the range from 3-5 should be enough to allow the player some flexibility and still have a randomness associated with the deck that gives the player a unique play mode.

The other solution I have is a bit more dramatic in terms of the change to arena. The player would be able to see all 30 sets of selections and then would be able to pick one card from each set in any order. This would greatly minimize the randomness associated with deck building in arena but it would also make Arena much more like constructed play mode. I’m guessing this won’t happen since people generally like to be surprised in their decks from Arena.

Hearthstone lacks any social features at all other than incorporating your Battle.net friends list. During player matches in both arena and play mode, both players can only use six different emotes, a greeting, a well played, thanks, sorry, oops, and a threaten. This works for most of the time since I feel like most online communities end up having people curse at you for playing certain cards or just talk nonsense which really hurts the long term community.  However I would like the ability to add players I face as a friend after a match so that I can eventually have a rematch against them. I’ve had quite a few matches where both us were pretty much even for most of the game. There isn’t even a general chat where you can discuss the game or find players to match up against. You pretty much have to become an active member of a forum to find new friends to play against.

Another feature I would love to see is a tournament mode where players can face off against each other in a tournament fashion and crown someone the winner. It would be nice to have a tournament mode for both random players and one with friends. Logistics would be the biggest problem for the random player tournament since not everyone can dedicate an entire afternoon to gaming. However I think a friendly tournament mode would work best for people who just want to make a day out of the event. Maybe even allow for an entry fee that gets split up among the top three winners which would give incentive to play in this mode.

One thing I noticed about the game right away was the fact that the basic deck can only take you so far. Eventually you will reach a point where you’re only facing people who have bought a good amount of packs and will end up losing to them constantly. Farming for packs doesn’t seem reasonable since it takes at least 30 wins in play mode to get enough gold for a single pack or 45 wins to get an arena entry. However that first set of 40 packs for about $50 will help you secure a lot more wins when you end up in the higher ranks. It’s hard to resist the temptation of buying even more packs since there are so many cards available.  Even after buying 120 packs, I’m missing about 128 cards (this includes 2 copies of regular cards to make complete sets) with about 25ish being legendary. I’m tempted to get another set of 40 packs in order to close out that gap but I think I’ll resist my urge in order to conserve some money. I’m sure Blizzard has made a killing off Hearthstone since almost everyone I know that has a beta key has spent on average about $50.

My overall experience with Hearthstone has been great.  I believe Blizzard has created an awesome cash cow with a lot of opportunity to expand their future revenue. Hearthstone is very welcoming to new players who may have never picked up a card game before. It also has enough depth to keep players entertained for months especially with all the different types of decks available. I look forward to Blizzard continuing to add new cards classes through future expansions for Hearthstone.

Downloadable Content

Downloadable content (DLC) has been a major part of current generation of consoles. I generally like the idea of downloadable content but I feel like some developers have been abusing it. I don’t mind paying for new content that helps invigorate my desire to play the game by adding content that enriches my experience. It does bother me when a company tries to make a cash grab by removing features that should have already been in the game only to force users to pay for it later on.

My earliest experience with DLC goes back to the very first Splinter Cell on the original Xbox. I didn’t have Xbox live at the time but I was able to bring my xbox to a friend’s house and download the new levels. Surprisingly, the extra levels were all free which is something you rarely find nowadays. I remember when I was reading up on the original Xbox, Microsoft stated that developers would be able to update games such as sports titles with current rosters and updated stats through downloadable content. Obviously most sports titles just release a new edition every year instead of using DLC but it certainly was an interesting approach.

While DLC may have its origins in providing players with more content for their favorite games, it has been used more recently as a passive deterrent to used game sales. Developers hope that players will hold on to their copy of a game until all the DLC is released therefore reducing the supply of used games available. Other developers figured out that they could attach DLC to brand new copies which would also dissuade people from purchasing a used copy. Some developers even decided that they would use online game passes to convince users to buy new or at least for used copies to provide some revenue through purchasing an online pass from the developer. Fortunately online passes are becoming a thing of the past since companies like EA are removing them from current games and finding alternatives to deter used game sales.

My current issue with DLC is the idea of season passes. It sounds great on paper, the player get a discount on a set of DLC and the developer gets the money early to produce the DLC. However what happens if the developer goes under before all the DLC is made. Does the player get a refund for the amount of DLC they are missing or are they just out of luck? While there haven’t been any cases of this occurring yet, it still makes me weary about purchasing any season passes from developers that aren't as well known.

Another issue I have with more recent DLC is the fact that costumes are becoming more related to micro transaction instead of as incentives to completing the game in unique ways. In Ninja Gaiden Black for the Xbox, the player would be awarded different costumes based on the difficulty they beat. Harder difficulties usually had the more popular costume choices that ended up looking amazing and helped the player feel rewarded for beating the harder difficulties. However in Ninja Gaiden II for the Xbox 360 the costume rewards for beating the harder difficulty were just color swaps whereas the purchasable costumes were significantly different. I don’t mind the idea of adding new costumes that let player personalize their character, it just seems like developers are getting rid of any incentives that players used to have before the days of DLC. Imagine if you played Metal Gear Solid and you weren't rewarded for either of the endings. You would have to buy the active camo or bandanna off the games marketplace in order to be able to use them. It doesn't really make a huge difference in gameplay but you also don’t have any rewards that make subsequent play through more enjoyable.

I would like to see DLC as a way for developers to try out new ideas that might have not worked in the original game. Developers could experiment with ideas that didn't make it in the retail copy because of time shortages or budget restraints. They could use it as a test for ideas that may be incorporated in sequels. Alan Wake is a good example of how the developers were able to throw in a new idea into the DLC that definitely kept the gameplay refreshing. Remedy, the developers of Alan Wake tossed in the idea that the player could shine light on words that would then spawn safe areas or even items for the player to use. It was a risk but since the DLC is much shorter than the campaign, it wouldn't be a huge issue if the player disliked the new mechanic.

DLC is definitely something that will continue long into the next generation of gaming consoles. I like to support developers, especially ones that seem to want to provide quality experiences instead just trying to make a quick buck by releasing the latest version of their game. I honestly don’t mind the idea of buying costumes if it will help the developer continue to create more games. While I do miss the old days of unlocking new costumes and accessories in games, I understand that game development costs have risen with each new generation and developers could use the extra cash to help offset those costs. I just hope developers are not trying to nickel and dime the consumer by taking apart a finished game and selling it as extra content.

Super Mario Bros. 3: A platformer above all others

Super Mario Bros. 3 is considered to be one of the best platformer of all time.  I’ve never played it until very recently when I was able to find a copy of the Gameboy Advance version, Super Mario Advance 4: Super Mario Bros. 3 (you have to love how they named all the super Mario advanced games). I have played the original Mario Bros. on NES and Super Mario World both on SNES and the GBA release. I much more fond memories of Super Mario World since I played that more often and it is the main Mario game from my childhood. I have very little platformer experience in my years of gaming. I’ve played a few here and there but for the most part I generally stay away from the genre.  The main reason I avoid platformers is because I am terrible at them. The number of lives I’ve gone through in this playthrough is more than I care to remember. The number of times I cursed up a storm in SMB3 is comparable to my playthroughs of Ninja Gaiden 2. However even with all this frustration I thoroughly enjoyed the game.

Some of the great songs in video game history come from the Mario series. SMB3 delivers another excellent soundtrack. My favorite songs from this game are definitely the Airship theme, Big Island and King. The Airship song has a heavy emphasis on percussion instruments, similar to percussions used in military drills which are very fitting for the Airship levels. The Big Island song me represents one of the brighter and goofier levels which accurately captures the feeling of seeing a giant Goomba for the first time. The King song just doesn’t seem like it would come from a Mario game but it fits perfectly in the mini cutscenes when Mario transforms the king back to normal.

SMB3 features a number of unique power ups, more than what was present in Super Mario World. My favorite power up is still the fire flower since it generally makes most levels a breeze after you chuck fire balls at enemies. I actually didn’t learn what the difference between the Racoon Mario and Tanooki Mario was until after I had finished the game. I’m not sure if it would have made a difference in my experience but it would have been nice if there was some message to let me know the difference. Hammer Mario was probably my second favorite suit to use since it was very similar to the fire flower. I used the frog suit the least amount of times because it is only useful for the handful of underwater levels present in this game. I would prefer to be small Mario then Frog Mario on dry land but in the water, Frog Mario was king. The Frog suit made all the water based levels much more bearable which is great since I generally hate all water based levels (those damn Water Temples in Zelda).

The level designs were very interesting, especially toward the later part of the game. The Sky world had some unique ideas such as the vertically scrolling sections or ascending the vertical tower to get to the second half of Sky world. The Pipe World also featured an interesting design. The player can walk off the screen and appear on the opposite ide which leads to some interesting vertical platforming. I did find the overworld to be annoying to travel through since you         have to use the pipes to get around which increases the time it takes to travel around the map. Bowser’s castle features a number of unique areas such as fighting through tanks and battleships (similar to the airship battles at the end of each world). The levels in general are much shorter than Super Mario World and do not have any mid way gates. Most levels contain either 1 or 2 power ups throughout the level, with one located near the beginning.

The enemy designs are what you generally see in most Mario games, some Koopas with variations, Goombas, Lakitu, Piranha Plants, beetles and some Hammer brothers. There were some enemies that I haven’t seen before such as the Angry Sun, Fire Snakes, Stretch, and Fire Chomps. The Angry Sun probably wins first prize for the most annoying and scariest enemy of any Mario game. It literally only appears in the game twice but it has such an intimidating presence that I will never forget it. Its only life goal is to just scare the crap out of you at the worst possible times.

SMB3 does have some flaws within its design. The first thing I noticed was that a lot of the power ups that were available in a level were placed so that there was an immediate danger right next to it making it difficult to attain. If there was no danger and the power up was a regular mushroom then it would have a good chance of moving away from you into a pit or a bunch of enemies. Power ups should be items that are available to help players that are unfamiliar with the game. Another problem with the power up system is that if you lose a power up in the middle of a level you can’t access your reserve until after that level. While the reserve in SMW let you only old one item (SMB3 allows you to hold about 36 items) it allowed you to access it during the level. This made SMW much friendlier to new players since you weren’t as severely punished if you took a lot of hits in one level. I have a hoarding mentality when it comes to items in video games. I had 35 items available to use when I was at the final castle in Bowser’s lair. With the SMW system, I ended up using the items more often because I could only hold one. In SMB3 I played through about 75% of the game as small Mario because I didn’t want to spend on item because of my conservative play style. SMB3 is generally a much harder Mario game then most of the other version, World 8 has a huge spike in difficulty. I can see many people arriving at World 8 and then just giving up because the difficulty is so much harder than what you were used to. The last thing that I absolutely despised was that the airships moved after every attempt. This wouldn’t be so bad if it only moved a couple of squares away, but I’ve had the airship move off the screen which then I had to pursue it through pipes only to lose and then have to pursue it back to the other side of the map. The worst was when this occurred in the Pipe world which at one point made me want to quit playing this game.

Now the question is if I would recommend this game? It really depends on who is asking. If the person has some experience in platformers and is looking to play a slightly harder game then it would be perfect for them. However if the person is someone who is looking to get into platformers then I would probably recommend either SMW or one of the newer Mario Bros. games on the DS and Wii. I did enjoy this game and can see why it is generally considered to be one of the best Mario games of all time. I would recommend playing the GBA version over the NES since the GBA version lets you continue from the last world you played and has a more lenient saving system. My friend also let me know that the GBA version allows you to go back through any of the levels after you defeat Bowser where as the original NES did not allow this. If you are looking to conquer this platformer I can give you some advice. Play very short sessions of SMB3. I did about 15 minutes every few hours or so (sometimes once a day) where I would try the level out and if I kept dying within those 15 minutes I would stop and come back later. There something about taking a break that let me absorb some information and made the levels much easier. I definitely recommend you try this if you're stuck at a level for sometime. 

Game Design Fundamentals: Know Your Audience!

I decided to start writing about my ideas of what game design entails. Game design is not an exact science or mathematical formula. However we can study it as a subject and try to learn some ways to approach game design that can help promote a successful design theory. Game design to me boils down to creating many solutions to a single problem and then seeing what best addresses all the issues presented. There are many different aspects of game design that all contribute to the success of a game but this post is only going to pertain to a small but important aspect, the target audience.

One of the first decisions you should make as a game designer is to decide on your primary audience. People like to believe that they are individually unique which is true but they also tend to share a lot of similarities. Companies spend vast amounts of money and time on market research to learn more about their customers. As a game designer you should tailor your game towards a specific market segment. You can try targeting more than one type of audience but it can leave the users dissatisfied with the overall experience. Trying to appease everyone will leave you with a game that has satisfied no one.

Choosing an audience depends on a number of factors. If you’re designing a game for a firm chances are they are trying to increase their profits through the game. So then you need to figure out which audience would be able to best support the profits needed. Sometimes a firm will need to make an educational game which already has an intended audience. If the project is something more personal then you can decide who you would like to play your game and then tailor the experience around them. You also have to take into account your specific skill set and how they translate to different audiences. Let’s take for example someone who can design very challenging levels that require a specific set of skills. This designer’s skills would be better suited for a more traditional and skillful player than someone who prefers to play casual games.

After you decided on a primary audience you should then understand their needs. Your goal from this point on is to design a game that is tailored towards your target audience. You need to learn as much as you can about what they enjoy, how they play, how often, how much time they dedicate per session, the different genres they play and their skill level. The better you understand your primary audience the better you can mold your game to their needs.

You should begin to design your game while catering to their skill level. The earlier sections of the game should be slightly easier so that players can be introduced to the ways your mechanics work and to ease them into your game. Frustration early into a game will make your audience annoyed and they will most likely avoid playing the rest of the game. When I refer to difficulty here I am referring to it as a relative value. An easier difficulty means that it should be something easier for that target audience. So an easy level for a skill traditional player could probably be something that would be a medium or hard level for a person less familiar with the genre. Difficulty should slowly ramp up as the player continues through the game. The audience should be able to gradually increase their skill as they continue to play slightly harder levels.

Listening to your audience is probably one of the most critical skills a designer needs. As a designer, you should be constantly visiting forums and reaching out to your primary audience. You should look at similar games to the one you are designing and see what your primary user’s enjoy and what they loathe. You need to be able to listen to their feedback and understand what they really dislike about it. If they tell you that the game is too hard, then maybe you should try to change the section so that it eases them into the area. Maybe they find your game too similar to other alternatives. You should then try to find out what other types of games they enjoy and try introducing those mechanics into your game. Everything revolves around trying to appease your audience.

Knowing your audience is one of the most important skills a game designer needs. The scope of this post does not include everything you need to know about your audience but it does address what I feel are some important points. I’m sure in the future I’ll continue to address a few more ideas about a primary audience but I feel like this post should provide a certain way of thinking when designing games. Hopefully I will continue to provide some of my insight toward game design fundamentals in the future.

Google's Gaming Console

There are rumors that Google is currently developing their own home gaming console that will run on the Android operating system.  This is something I have been expecting for a long time since a gaming console fits well within their capabilities and helps unify the different products and services that Google offers. There are a number of issues that Google will need to address if they want their console to succeed.

The Google console needs to be on par with the current generation of gaming consoles. Its technical capabilities should be somewhere between the Wii U and the Playstation 4. Offering a device that uses smart phone hardware will just be ignored by the gaming audience. The arguments I had against the Ouya apply towards this type of design. By releasing a console that is on par with the current generation, Google will be able to generate interest among the traditional gaming audience.

Third party support will be crucial to the success and longevity of the Google console. Sony worked with developers when engineering the PS4 architecture because Sony understands that quality game franchises are what sell consoles. Games that become available on both Xbox One and PS4 need to be available on the Google console in order to be considered a viable alternative. By having a console that is similar to its competitors, third party developers will have an easier time porting their games to the Google console. More high quality games will interest the traditional gaming audience and can help boost sales for the console.

Google needs to show that their new console is an indie developer’s friend. There has been a huge surge of indie developers releasing quality games in the last few years. Indie games such as Super Meat Boy, Dungeon Defenders, Stealth Bastard Deluxe, Superbrother: Sword & Sworcery and Cave Story have been well received by the core gaming audiences. More freedom for indie developers will allow for more creative games which in turn will help sell the Google console.

Google cannot rely on only third party support and indie developers to sell their consoles. They need to work on new intellectual properties that will be exclusively available to the Google console. If all the consoles share the same third party games, then the exclusive first party titles are going to be the deciding factor for the traditional gaming audience. Google’s first party games need to be better than the Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Halo, Gears of War, Uncharted, and Little Big Planet series in order to succeed. A strong first party line will nudge the traditional gaming audience towards owning a Google console.

Distribution of games for current consoles has been primarily through retail stores with an addition to a digital marketplace. I believe Google will rely on an all digital approach. This however means there will be issues of DRM that could create some concerns. I believe the best approach to the issue of DRM is how the Xbox 360 handles DRM on digital games. When the user purchases a game, that game is locked on to that console and can be played offline and by any other user. That original purchaser also has access to that game whenever they access their profile on a different console as long as they are connected to the internet. Also the original purchaser can transfer all their licenses to a new consoles every few months just incase something happens to their original console.

Another concern with an all digital approach is the fact that users will not be able to sell their games. The primary concern is that games cost a lot of money and selling old games allows people to have the funds to play the latest games. However used games sales do not benefit the developers. Google can follow the same business plan as Steam. Since all games are locked to a Steam account, there are no used games and all sales go back to the developers. However Steam games generally cost less then physical retail copies in order to compensate for losing the ability to resell games. Steam also hosts sales on a huge assortment of games and at regular intervals. Even though Steam has a harsh DRM policy, the fact that games become so cheap during sales justifies the DRM used.

Google will obviously include all its other services such as Gmail, Gchat, Play Music store, and Youtube. I expect this console to become more than just a gaming device; it will be an alternative to the PC market. As smart phones gain more features, desktop PC’s are becoming less essential towards every day use. Tablets are already capable of performing similar tasks as low end PCs but are much more convenient for every day use. Google’s gaming console would be able to provide the same function as a PC through the various apps that Google will release. Google can sync is different products like Chrome and the Play store to generate more ads which in turn generates more revenue for them. Another incentive for Google is to place unobtrusive ads within the console’s dashboard which generates another revenue stream for them.  The ads available from the console would be selected based on purchases and other relevant information that is taken from user Google account in order to provide the user with appropriate ads.

I believe Google has the best shot at making a quality game console that can compete with the big three. I really hope Google tries to cater towards the traditional gaming markets. More competition in the traditional gaming markets is generally much better for the consumers in the long run. Google has been working on making their Android games better with different features such as a multiplayer system, leaderboards and achievements. Hopefully Google will release more information about its plans for a gaming console.

The All In One Box

Microsoft’s big reveal for this month was their all in one entertainment powerhouse, the Xbox One. Microsoft’s event relayed a lot of information about its latest console with regards to the different ways that the Xbox One will change televised entertainment but any information on games was severely lacking.  The console specs are comparable to Sony’s Playstation 4 with some minor differences. The user interface is a mix between the Xbox 360’s latest interface and Windows 8. Every Xbox One comes with a Kinect sensor and is fully integrated into the system.

The Xbox One’s Kinect has to be connected to the console. Microsoft seems adamant about forcing people to use the camera technology by allowing users to navigate through console‘s menu with only voice commands and hand motions. The problem I have with the Kinect is that amount of space required to use it. My Xbox 360 is hooked up to a television in my room which isn’t a large as a living room. A Kinect wouldn't work in such a small space which is why I've been hesitant to purchase one (along with the fact that no game I want requires a Kinect). So unless Microsoft has found a way around the issue of space, a Kinect in my room is worthless. The Kinect is always on which may cause users to become hesitant towards the Xbox One. Players can use voice commands to start the Xbox up which means Kinect will be listening even when the console is turned off.  It feels like Microsoft is walking on the fine line for customer privacy with this always on Kinect sensor.

Xbox 360 controllers or other accessories will not be supported on the Xbox One. This isn't something I’m too concerned about since every generation does upgrade their controllers. The updated controller for the Xbox One has an new directional pad, updated triggers, the guide button closer to the top of the controller, a bezel to each of the analog sticks and the start and back buttons replaced with two different icons. The new directional pad looks better but I can’t be sure until I actually try it. The original dpad on the 360 controller was awful. I would press down and the controller would register a left or right input. What seems like an awkward design choice was moving the guide button to the top center. I feel like my thumbs wouldn't be able to hit the guide button as easily as any of the other buttons. A new feature for the controller is the triggers have a rumbling feature. I can see this improving immersion in first person shooters by having triggers jam up or provide feedback directly to our fingers. Other than the oddly placed guide button, the controller seems like an improvement over the great Xbox 360 version.

Microsoft was eagerly showing off the different ways that the Xbox One was able to multitask. Players will be able to utilize the snap feature from Windows 8 to pull up a second app while playing a game or watching a video. Microsoft’s latest acquisition of Skype will begin to show some synergies in the upcoming console. Microsoft showed off the ability to Skype call a friend while playing a game using the Kinect. Xbox One’s player chat will be controlled by Skype allowing users to access both their Xbox live friends list and their Skype contact list. It is also rumored that Skype will provide players the ability to remotely take over a friend’s console and play their game. Users will also have access to local television broadcasts as well as a horde of apps dedicated to bringing you the latest media entertainment. Microsoft is really pushing to dominate the home entertainment market share by creating a device that will encompass everything you need for your living room.

The one thing that I believe will hurt the Xbox One is the lack of backwards compatibility. While Sony’s PS4 won’t have backward compatibility support from the launch, they stated that they are looking into streaming capabilities to allow users access to the extensive backlog of Playstation games. Microsoft didn't indicate any plans of allowing any form of Xbox or Xbox 360 games to be playable on the Xbox One. Backwards compatibility will essentially make a difference depending on how well the launch games are received. Better launch games will mean that customer’s won’t have to rely on last gen games to help buffer the time it takes for the top games to be released.

One great feature added to the Xbox One is the ability to immediately play games while they install to the hard drive. This feature is also complemented by the fact that players can suspend and resume games instantly with the Xbox One. This allows players the ability to stop their session mid game to handle some emergency and then resume right away when they can. It helps promote short play sessions and allows users to commit as much time as they want.

The Xbox cloud processing system sounds great at first but makes me weary for the future of gaming. The cloud processing system will allow for more calculation to occur on Microsoft’s servers which means more dynamic lighting and physics. However it also means that the user has to be on Xbox live to take advantage of these features. Some users don’t have readily available high speed internet in there area or a consistent connection. I’m more worried about the future when maybe 10 years down the road when the Xbox One is no longer supported. What happens to the games that relied on these cloud computing servers if they are not available? Will I not be allowed to play a single player game that I purchased for the Xbox One because it requires a connection to the cloud servers which were eventually shut down? These are questions that I begin to ask my self when I purchase games digitally. I almost always prefer to own a physical copy of a game just in case something happens to the servers in the future. However with the Xbox One, owning a physical copy might not entitle me to play the game in the future. This also points to another feature for the Xbox One. The discs will have a DRM on them that locks the games to the console. However what happens 10 years from now when the Xbox One isn’t supported and I happen to find some extremely rare used game. Will my Xbox refuse to play the game because it is linked to another console?

The Xbox One is an interesting console. Microsoft’s strategy for creating an all-in-one media monster is seen throughout the Xbox One, both in software and hardware. The physical design of the Xbox One rivals the design of VCRs, DVD players and Blu-ray players. The Xbox One does not resemble a gaming console because Microsoft wants to take the Xbox brand and create a multi-media experience. However I am still worried about the privacy we are giving up by having an always on Kinect and the future of our games that might require access servers that will eventually be taken down. While Microsoft didn’t show much gameplay at their reveal event, I believe they are saving most of the game related details for E3.

Randomness, What is it good for?

I used to actively raid in World of Warcraft with some real life friends. My friend one day decided to switch roles for a raid. He no longer wanted to play a melee role and decided to play a caster role. Luckily for him his class had a wide range of roles to choose from. However after sometime he became discouraged because his abilities relied on a chance to activate off of other abilities. This meant that his damage output was somewhat random. Most players that are in the role of dealing damage are competitive and are always looking at the damage output charts. So even though my friend was a competent player his damage output would change based on his luck during that fight. This eventually made him revert to his melee role which was based less on random factors.

As we can see randomness has a negative connotation. It is easy to see why most players would dislike randomness. A player is given control over certain variables in a game. They are able to manipulate these variables to solve the problems set by the game. However the randomness of a variable is something that player cannot control. If this variable has a large impact on the decisions the player has to make then the randomness will be seen as a negative. However if this variable has very little impact then the player might not even realize there was some sort of random factor that contributed to their decision.

I want to take a look at how some games have actually used random elements that have negatively impacted the game.

Diablo 3’s loot system suffers from relying on too much on randomness. The game throws a large amount of items at you but due to how much randomness there is in determining item stats they always amount to being sold to a vendor. Luckily the designers at Blizzard have been working towards creating a more meaningful loot system which will reduce the amount of randomness when items are generated.

 Another game that always manages to irritate me is the Mario Party series. You can do very well throughout the entire game and then at the very end someone can easily take your stars away with no hope for recovery. I wouldn’t mind it as much if it happens earlier so that you have a chance to make a come back but usually these random star taking events occur towards the end.

The Pokémon RPG series on Nintendo handheld systems is notorious for using randomness when generating stats for Pokémon. This doesn’t have a major impact on anyone who is just trying to beat the game. However for the players who play competitively, it will take them hours upon hours to get the perfect Pokémon.  It even got to the point where players have learned how the random number generation for Pokémon works and are able to eventually manipulate it to help obtain the perfect Pokémon. Gamefreak probably initially intended for the randomness to create unique Pokémon so that it would be rare to find a friend with the exact same Pokémon. Gamefreak has tried to help reduce this issue by allowing for some of this randomness to be controlled by using items to pass down specific statistic which is much better than just having to farm Pokémon eggs till you get the right stats.

I believe that randomness can be used to create positive gaming experiences even with all the negative associations.

Trading card games use randomness when players are forced to shuffle their decks. This helps keep the game fresh instead of just pulling out the same 5 cards for the start of each hand and creating a predictable set of moves. The random cards in your hand means you have to be actively thinking about your deck strategy and how your current position can help you to achieve your original strategy. Players can complain that the randomness means you were dealt a terrible hand which ultimately cost you defeat. However if you balance out your deck with a variety of cards you can minimize these effects. As we can see here, randomness does play a role in trading card games but there is some way to limit how much it affects your game.

Earlier I stated that the random stat generation in Pokémon was a poor use. When Pokémon are generated there is a chance for them to become a different color, known as shiny. The chance for this to occur is 1 out of 8192. You can pretty much go through almost all the Pokémon games and never see one. However once you do encounter one you will probably be in disbelief. The fact that it is such a low chance means you won’t actively go for it unless you can find a way to manipulate the randomness in the game. Also since the difference between a shiny Pokémon and a normal Pokémon is only an aesthetic difference, it does not provide any real advantage to farm for such a rare outcome. Since the randomness in this situation only creates a visual change, I feel like it is something that makes the game series better.

FTL: Faster than Light is a game based off random events. At first you would think the randomness just makes the game unfair forcing you to restart. The designers for FTL probably accounted for this and made sure the game was relatively short. You can probably complete the game within an hour and a half. Since the game is so short you don’t mind if you fail because you can just start up again. A great thing about this game is that each time you play the game you learn a little more about how to handle each scenario presented to you. After a few failures, you will get the hang of it and be able to progress much further through the random encounters. Randomness works well in FTL because of the short sessions. If you get dealt a lot of bad random encounters, you can always just restart the game since you probably wouldn’t have lost more than an hour or so. Also that hour you just lost probably taught you a lot of valuable lessons to take with you in future playthroughs.

So what can we learn from these games and the proper use of random number generation? One thing is to make sure you aren’t using random number generation that overwhelms all other mechanics. You want to also avoid penalizing players for things that they have no control over. An important way to use random number generation is to make sure the player has some way to minimize the effects. It is important to understand that randomness helps to reduce the monotony in some games and without it every playthrough would become the same as the last.