Weblog Entry - 05/31/2003: "unfinished essay"

preface: i was writing this for someone's livejournal, but it became too long and pretentious for me to consider putting into his journal. i'm not even quite sure what point i was trying to argue, i was just trying to provide some of the insights into computer games that i have developed due to my conversations with various doominati. i'm posting it here hoping that there's at least some value in my thoughts, and i'd also like to see if anyone disagrees with me on any of these points. well, here goes:

pardon my limited experience, but i believe the most important thing in team programming, and i guess most cooperative projects, is the art of compromise.

compromise is hard when you are working with code because a programmer usually has the best idea as to the most efficient method of tackling a problem. a conflict arises when this programmer is not understood, ignored, or just plain wrong regarding their views.

i know the halflife code was "bad" (extra emphasis on the quotation marks), but the results are unmistakably superior if you compare it to other games on the merits of enjoyable gameplay.

.. gameplay vs. technology is a cliche argument but i think anyone can sense a spectacular game with substandard programming (half-life, probably and unfortunately halflife2) versus spectacular programming with substandard gameplay (q3a, probably and unfortunately doom3)

apparently carmack rewrites his code like a fucking madman -- when the half-life interns had finished their hacks for a monster behavior and gone home for the night, carmack was on his fifth experimental algorithm for an aspect of fundamental engine behaviour.

do i have a point? both sides of the cliche are critically important to the success of a game. spectacular gameplay based on painfully dated technology makes the player fantasize about what could have been achieved using current technology.

spectacular technology with painfully dated gameplay makes the player fantasize about what could have been achieved using current gameplay.

it's unfortunate that the gameplay element is so much more of an inexact science than the technology of PC games. technology is unabashedly imitated throughout the entire industry -- within a couple years following doom3, every game in the world will be released with volumetric shadows, and most of them will use carmack's reverse. this is not considered abnormal, that's just the name of the game with gaming technology. the idea-borrowing from gameplay has to be a lot more subtle.

let's compare counter-strike with RTCW because i'm lazy and they're the highest on my mind right now. RTCW's teamplay came a couple of years following counter-strike, and the gameplay was deceptively similar.

- choice of weapons CS: based on team/money RTCW: based on team/class
- map objectives CS: assassination, defuse, hostage RTCW: map-based and better disguised, always consists of "secure this area" or "steal this item" or "bomb this" or "defend that"
- weapon balance CS: some sniper rifles, some assault rifles, some heavy weaponry, varied explosives RTCW: some sniper rifles, some assault rifles, some heavy weaponry, varied explosives (ooo, lets add some proximity mines stolen from duke3d for variety)
- death punishment CS: wait out the round RTCW: wait until next spawn time

recognizing the elements of strong gameplay is very hard for programmers because programmers talk the language of efficient mathematics. worse yet, programmers misunderstand gameplay to the extent that they are disgusted when they think about lifting gameplay elements directly from other games, because they think their project will end up as a clone.

ok, i just had to help my half-drunk uncle into the house so i guess i'm going to stop ranting now.

"design is law"? carmack basically dismissed this idea by stating that romero worked too hard creating his fantasy world instead of putting hard work into the development process, and i'd agree with this. also, however, i'd say that carmack's games are seriously lacking in (again, horribly cliched) "fun factor" -- gameplay elements are few, overused, and as a result, tedious in id titles.

some of the most fun in games comes from simple allowances. that is, allowing the player to create scenarios that are original, weird, interesting, funny, and fun. counter-strike allows these scenarios through its different weapons and objectives.

detour: here are a couple of examples of intensely enjoyable gaming experiences: first, i was playing counterstrike with a couple of my friends (we just started playing again a week or two ago), we were playing cs_office and there were three players left: a CT, my teammate and i. my teammate was killed, and because i was watching my radar, i knew the approximate location of the CT. i silently walked towards this location and turned a corner to see the CT silently walking in a direction away from me. instead of gunning him down on the spot i decided to get in a little closer.

after following him around about three corners, with the rational part of my brain screaming "HE'S GOING TO CHECK BEHIND HIM ANY SECOND," i mastered my fears and drew my knife. when he turned to the left, i stepped to the right to avoid accidentally falling into his field of vision.

finally, with tension at its breaking point, i caught up to him and dug my knife into his back. luckily, he died instantly, and was reminded always to check behind him even if he doesn't hear anything.