Two Approaches to Making Large Lands: Procedural and Modular

Creating large game environments takes a large amount of time no matter how one goes about creating it. I’m quite interested in procedural generation to decrease production time and provide an easy way to add variety to environments. The upcoming game Sir, You Are Being Hunted is being designed using procedural generation of the English countryside.

Despite the fact that you get landscapes by pressing a button it’s such a large undertaking to make procedural generated spaces. The effort is direct more to code and bug fixies instead of other aspects of design. To get an idea of this, the Sir team wrote about procedurally generating the countryside.

One of the more complex regions are the village cells. These have detailed scripts to generate the layout of houses, roads and gardens. First, roads are drawn into the terrain splatmap extending out at different angles from the village centre. Then a series of functions line the roads with houses and other buildings. Finally there is a chance for houses to have a range of garden types behind them, these gardens are themselves populated by various scenery elements and other features. Villages provide a much more complex environment for exploration and combat, and may include lootable containers with valuable resources. They are also more likely to harbour enemies.

being hunted

At BLDBLOG there is a piece on how their procedural countryside design is made with the added bonus of comparing it to an ongoing project in reality (at the end of the article). The countryside is being created digitally and physically.

There is another approach though, and that is modular design using kits.

Bethesda makes games set in expansive places like Fallout 3 and Skyrim. In fact, Skyrim is so large that I felt the need to make a post about it. The use of in-house art kits allow designers to create such vast lands to explore.

In a very in-dpeth post about modular design two designers from Bethesda (based off their GDC 2013 presentation) discuss their approach. I really appreciate how they connect what they are doing digitally with a physical comparison:

Kits aren’t a new idea. They aren’t unique to Bethesda or to the types of games we make. Consider the board game Carcassone. Unlike Monopoly or Scrabble, the board changes every time you play Carcassone. The tiles are arranged so that roads meet roads, rivers meet rivers, and so on, creating an effectively randomized yet visually cohesive whole. It’s easy to see the grid when looking at a Carcassone table, and how this system of art works together to make a unique play field.

Their post outlines how to rethink some aspects of the design process to better use time and other resources. They have stages of designing, testing, and iterating that are all worth looking into if you want to use modular design.

Level design

Throughout their post they mention the pros and cons of modular design from multiple perspectives. Some artists may find it scary (or just wrong) as an approach and level designers may find it to be limiting. I think that the most important take is the following:

Looking again towards the benefits of working modular, one of the big bonuses (especially from a production viewpoint) is that a modular approach helps if your team has a low ratio of artists to designers. Remember the ten people responsible for the dungeon content in Skyrim? Eight of them are the level designers, and only two represent the entirety of our full-time kit art team. They generated seven kits, which the level design team used to create well over 400 cells, or unique loaded interiors, of dungeon content. And those dungeons were built in about two and a half years, from start to finish.

At the end of the day is it better to use modular or procedural? There is no clear answer and in many cases they can be related to one another (just think that procedural needs modular pieces). It comes down to the skills on your team and what kind of game you’re building.



April 29th, 2013 by Adam

Free to Play or go Paid? Mobile Game Business Decisions

A writer at Gamasutra decided to ask some mobile game developers about their business models for their respective games. Some of them chose to go free to play and others went the fully-paid route. Their responses to the questions provide some insight into their decisions. However, like most decisions it comes down to the kind of game you’re trying to make.

Here’s one of the many responses:

I still think a F2P puzzle is a lot harder to monetize than other F2P genres, mostly because the content is limited and requires a lot of level design.

Candy Crush is the best example of highly successful F2P puzzle. They have more than 250 levels and are still producing a lot of content and find new gameplay mechanics with every update to keep their current userbase. That’s a lot of content, 2x more than what Angry Birds has.

The other thing that’s hard in general with an F2P game is balance – to monetize you have to create gameplay mechanics which involve timers, and some developers will also play with frustration to push the player to buy bonuses or boosts.

Read more at Gamasutra.

To augment the information gleaned from the Gamasutra article I suggest reading about the challenges of marketing a game. It’s not what it used to be at all.

Overall, ZeptoLab says it will spend around $1 million launching “Cut the Rope: Time Travel,” which traces the adventures of the green monster Om Nom as he meets versions of himself in time periods like the Renaissance and the Middle Ages. On top of that sum, which includes the costs of animation, the company is counting on some free help by promoting the game inside its other titles.

It’s essentially to think about the business plan and the game design concurrently.



April 26th, 2013 by Adam

Two Developers on Indie Sales Figures and Free Promotions

Sales figures and how successful promotions are for indie games are hard to come by. As a result I really appreciate it when people take the time to write up and publish their numbers (and overall experience) from selling their games.

Hitbox Team who created Dustforce and they decided to share their success because they found that similar analysis is hard to get:

FINDING GAME SALES DATA IS NOTORIOUSLY HARD. Video games have traditionally been a “hits driven” industry – the majority of revenue for a publisher comes from a handful of big commercial successes. With so many non-hits being made, publishers try to keep sales numbers a trade secret, as the more disappointing figures can be worrisome to investors. This trend has made discussing sales figures an uncomfortable topic, akin to talking about your salary.

Their write up on Dustforce sales figures is absolutely brilliant and has nice graphs like this one. It’s worth the read.

With any luck, we’ll see more developers post their results. Even if a game didn’t work out as well as expected, sharing the numbers and one did can be helpful to others.

That’s sales though. What about promotion?

Polymer is an iOS game that recently saw success. The person behind the game explored some promotional services to get the game on people’s mobiles and the results are interesting. An analysis of the game’s promotion is worth reading because it covers not only which promotion service worked best but it also goes into how Polymer changed based on player feedback.

To fix this problem, I have decided to switch to charging $2.99 with just cosmetic IAP’s instead of charging $1.99 with optional gameplay IAP’s. This is what I plan to do from now on. I do not believe that gameplay IAP’s are evil in any way, or that they are wrong. They work for many games and are clearly very successful. But unless something goes terribly wrong, I just want to make premium games without any possible way someone could see my game design as corrupted.



April 22nd, 2013 by Adam

Predict the Future Using the Web

In the Foundation series author Isaac Asimov created the concept of Psychohistory which is the notion of using history to predict the future. This fictional science allows leaders to plan for the future in great detail as long as people (at large) are unaware of Psychohistory and that the number of people being studied is incredibly large.

Essentially, Psychohistory uses math, trend analysis, and systems thinking to work. All of those core necessities exist today and we’re already beginning to see companies try to emulate Psychohistory.

Presently there are 7 billion people on the planet and many of them are creating information. Collating and sifting through this information can be hard and overly complex, let alone knowing where to look. An online service, Recorded Future uses publicly accessible information on the web for its predictive power.

Right now the site seems to be good at collecting information and letting people play with it, but its predictive powers are essentially untested. Which raises an interesting question: how long must a tool like this be accurate for and in what fields for it to have credibility? Still, it should give you a strong idea of what the future holds for what you’re looking into.

What Recoded Future is doing is essentially cliodynamics which is a relatively new study that is similar to Asimov’s Pyschohistory. Wikipedia describes the concept: “Cliodynamics practitioners attempt to come to with mathematical models of history to explain “big history” – things like the rise of empires, social discontent, civil wars, and state collapse.”

There is even a journal dedicated to cliodynamics aptly named Cliodynamics: The Journal of Theoretical and Mathematical History. The journal is open, wholly online, and free; they are accepting submissions to the journal if you’re interested.



April 19th, 2013 by Adam

Beware Brain Games and “NeuroBollocks”

There are a ton of games out there that claim to improve your brains ability to process/store information in one way or another, but do they work? Companies like Cogmed, Lumosity, and of course many others are all claiming that they do work and they can improve your brain; or, at the very least delay its decline.

The New Yorker recently looked into the meata-analyses of research studies that have proven that brain-training games improve working memory. The article Brain Games Are Bogus is a worth a read.

The basic questions is can games make you smarter? And here’s what the piece says:

The answer, however, now appears to be a pretty firm no—at least, not through brain training. A pair of scientists in Europe recently gathered all of the best research—twenty-three investigations of memory training by teams around the world—and employed a standard statistical technique (called meta-analysis) to settle this controversial issue. The conclusion: the games may yield improvements in the narrow task being trained, but this does not transfer to broader skills like the ability to read or do arithmetic, or to other measures of intelligence. Playing the games makes you better at the games, in other words, but not at anything anyone might care about in real life.

Does this mean we should stop using games to try and improve the brain, I don’t think so. I’m still very confident that games can be used to improve the way people conceptualize the world and how they operate within it. We may not be able to change the hardware, so to speak, but we may be able to update the software.

I found out about the above article via a great site called NeuroBollcks which wants to debunk false claims about neuroscience and “neuro-whatever”. They examine articles and products that claim they are using the latest of brain science to improve you, and most of it like Neuro-Linguistic Programming turns out to be nothing much more than snake oil.

So, what this blog aims to do is catalogue these neurobollocks-merchants, examine the evidence for their claims, and try to come to some evaluation of their merits.



April 16th, 2013 by Adam
%d bloggers like this: