In 1983, I was sharing a roach-infested hovel on Amsterdam Avenue with my friend Tom Gould. Since I'd graduated from college, about 18 months previously, I'd basically been screwing around--sponging off my Dad, playing a lot of games and reading science fiction, writing for fanzines, and working on the occasional boardgame design. I'd also started work on an Apple II game based on Poul Anderson's Flandry series (under license from Poul; it was to be published by Jim Baen of Baen Books, but was cancelled when the Atari crash hit, and Baen decided to pull out of software publishing).

I decided, though, that I wasn't going to go back to grad school, and it was time to get more serious. Thus, I sent off my resume to a bunch of places--Sir Tech, Sierra Online, Coleco, Atari--and Avalon Hill.

Tom Shaw gave me a call, and asked me to come down to Baltimore for an interview, so early one morning, I dragged myself down to Penn Station, got on a train, and did so. If I recall correctly, Tom came and got me at the station in Baltimore, and drove me to the old offices at 4517 Harford Road.

I had lunch with Shaw and Eric Dott, the company's president, known in the industry as Papa Dott (his son, Jackson Dott, later run the company, and was known as Baby Dott). It was a dark, old-fashioned restaurant; Dott recommended the French onion soup, which I had.

Back at the offices, Dott showed me around. He took me into the office of one of his accounting people, a middle-aged black woman, and told her that "Greg has always wanted a mammy," and asked her to show me her tits. She grinned and laughed at Massa's funny joke.

I am not making this up.

Touring the Avalon Hill offices was like touring some completely bizarre combination of 19th and 21st century technology. Avalon Hill, the company originally founded by Charles Roberts, had gone bankrupt back in the 60s, and had been taken over by its major creditor, Monarch Press, which had published Roberts's games. Dott was Monarch's president, and owned enough stock to control it, at least with the support of Tom Shaw, also a major equity holder. (The company was notionally public, but very thinly traded--a pink sheet NASDAQ stock.)

Monarch Press still existed; essentially, when they had slack time on the presses, they'd publish games. Among other things, Monarch manufactured envelopes. In one room, you could see the machines that made them, old, grimy devices folding paper and gluing it in place. In other room, you'd see serried ranks of personal computers--because among Monarch's subsidiaries, in addition to Avalon Hill, was Microcomputer Games, then among the largest publishers of games for home computers. Meaning mostly Apples and CPM machines, although they published for IBM PCs as well. Microcomputer Games was actually what I was interviewing for.

By passing through a doorway, you went from the past to the future.

Shaw and Dott knew me through my work for SPI, and I guess had basically decided to offer me a job unless I turned out to be a wacko -- or, I suspect, something other than a white heterosexual male. Dott took me back into his office, and showed me an Atari 2600 game they were planning on publishing. It was pretty dumb; supposedly, you were on the bomb squad in London during the blitz. You were supposed to locate unexploded Nazi bombs, and defuse them, "defusing" meaning moving three sliders on the screen until you found the right combination (or the thing blew up in your face.) Dott asked me what I thought, and I indicated that I was less than impressed, but this didn't seem to faze him. (I'll give Dott this; he didn't really understand games, but he did believe that good games sold better than lousy games, and never insisted that his staff be gung ho about the product. Honest opinion was okay.)

Then he gave me an employment application form. It was--pretty startling. I have to assume that it had originally been drafted for Monarch, because there wasn't a damn thing on it about games. It asked me what kind of printing equipment I could operate--lithograph, offset press, and so on. I used to publish fanzines on an old Gestetner mimeograph, so I checked the box that said "mimeograph." And then, at the bottom of the form, above a signature line, it asked me to attest that I was not now, nor had I ever been, a member of an organization devoted to the forcible overthrow of the United States government.

This gave me pause. First, I didn't think it was legal to ask that any more. I mean, it wasn't the fucking 1950s. Second, I've been a member of some pretty wacko libertarian groups--but as far as I know, none of them ever actually advocated armed revolution. So I signed.

Avalon Hill published a great many fine games over the years. But I can't say I was devastated when they sold out to Hasbro.

They offered me a job. Needless to say, I did not take it.
posted by Greg at 8:07 AM 1 comments

Through the wonders of wireless networking and mobile digital technology, The Computer has been able to bring many new services to the happy citizens of Alpha Complex, increasing their happiness above what had already been a near-maximal state.

As an example, among every Troubleshooter's most prized equipment is, invariably, his or her Series 1300 Personal Digital Companion (PDC), a helpful, friendly AI contained within a small plastic case, bearing a small color display screen and a standard telephony keypad.

The Series 1300 device is indeed truly a personal digital companion; through the miracle of voice-profiling technology, a Series 1300 device will respond only to the voice of its designated user. Thus, a traitorous troubleshooter cannot gain access to the PDC of a loyal troubleshooter, except maybe by forcing him to speak to the PDC at laser point.

In this regard, the Series 1300 device is vastly superior to the now-deprecated Series 1200, which required the user to provide a thumb-print to unlock the device. Since the introduction of the Series 1300, the incidence of Troubleshooter casualties missing thumbs has declined a seasonally-adjusted 68%.

The Series 1300 PDC is truly a multi-purpose device with many useful features. Among them are:

Calculator

Troubleshooter: PDC!
PDC: Yes, Citizen user?
Troubleshooter: How much is two plus two?
PDC: What is your security clearance, Citizen user?
Troubleshooter: Red, friend PDC!
PDC: Two plus two equals a number between three and six.
Troubleshooter: What?
PDC: You are not cleared for greater precision at this time.

Text messaging, e.g.,:

U R A TR8R!

Calendar

Troubleshooter: PDC!
PDC: Yes, Citizen user?
Troubleshooter: What is my schedule for today, PDC?
PDC: Loading… 0900 to 0945, interrogation by Internal Security. 0945 to 1000, mandatory Bouncy Bubble Beverage break. 1000 to 1200, show trial, televised live on What's My Treason?. 1200 to --
Troubleshooter: Wait! That's not my schedule. There must be some mistake.
Loudspeaker: Citizen Ron-R-GUY-1. Please report to Internal Security for immediate interrogation.

Address Book

Troubleshooter: PDC!
PDC: Yes, Citizen user?
Troubleshooter: Please add citizen Rachel-R-BLT-2 to my address book.
PDC: Accessing. I'm sorry, citizen user. There is no such citizen.
Troubleshooter: But I left her in cubicle ZXY-12 in BLT sector just ten minutes ago!
PDC: Accessing. Cubicle ZXY-12 is currently undergoing cleaning and renovation by the Department of Housing Preservation and Development and Mind Control prior to new occupancy.
Troubleshooter: But…. Please access cloning records for Rachel-R-BLT.
PDC: Accessing. There is no citizen Rachel-R-BLT. There has never been a citizen Rachel-R-BLT.
Troubleshooter: But…
PDC: You are mistaken.
Troubleshooter: But…
PDC: You seem distraught and possibly delusional, citizen. Please be calm, and remain in the area. Assistance is on the way.

Camera

The PDC can take an infinite number of high-resolution color photos with the built-in camera. "Infinite," because they are stored locally only for milliseconds, after which they are sent over the air to The Computer, where they are stored for your convenience, then scanned and auto-interpreted for evidence of treason. Later, they can be printed, using the printer at any standard Computer kiosk, in lush color, on high-quality photo-repreoduction paper, to serve as evidence at your trial.

Games
Of course! Your PDC can play Snake and Space Invaders. Playing these games is mandatory. Playing any other games is forbidden. Incidentally, every other device in Alpha Complex can play Snake and Space Invaders, including HEPA filters.

And, of course, the PDC can be used as a mobile phone:

(Sound of ring tone based on the recent hit tune "I'm So Glad to Be Sedated.")
Click.
User Desmond-O-NTY-3 is not available. This call has been forwarded to an automated voice system. Please listen carefully, as our menu options have changed. To confess to treason, please press 1. To accuse the citizen you are calling of treason, please press 2. To accuse a different citizen of treason, please press 3. To leave voice mail, please press 4. To send a numeric page, please press 5. For more options, please press 6.
[Sound of 3 being pressed.]
Thank you. Using the keypad, please enter the letters and digits corresponding to the name of the person you wish to accuse of treason.
[Miscellaneous bleeps and bloops.]
No such person. Main menu. To confess to treason, please press 1. To accuse the citizen you are---
[Irritable press of 6.]
More options. If not using a touch-tone phone, please press 1. If not sure whether you are using a touch-tone phone, please press 2. For your loan balance, please press 3. To answer the survey on the new Bouncy Bubble Beverage, please press 4. For global thermonuclear war, please press 5. If you know the number of the extention you are trying to reach, press pound and star simultaneously, then 3 several times quickly, and follow the voice instructions. For more options. For more options, please press eleventeen. Eleventeen. For more options. Options. General protection fault. This device will self destruct in ten seconds. Counting. Nine. Eight…

Ah, yes, the self-destruct mechanism--a handy little feature. As a last resort, a Troubleshooter can always set his or her Series 1300 PDC to self-destruct and use it as a grenade. The popularity of this feature is attested to by the fact that Troubleshooters who discharged their PDC prior to death at the hands of traitorous enemies is up a seasonally-adjusted 68% in this quarter alone.
posted by Greg at 10:10 AM 1 comments

As a result of a question by Jurie Horneman on a list-serv I participate in, there's been a fair bit of discussion on the topic of dynamic difficulty adjustment recently. As a result, Scott Miller has posted on the subject. He holds, in essence, that all games should feature dynamic difficulty adjustment. As usual, he argues passionately and intelligently; he is, however, wrong.

Scott's central argument is this:

"Afterall, it should be the designer's job is to insure the proper play experience, not the player's. The idea behind auto-dynamic difficulty (ADD) is to keep the player in the sweet spot, where the game remains challenging, but never impossible. A perfect game experience is one that constantly tests the player's skill, without being so hard they want to give up. Completing such a game gives a player an elated feeling of accomplishment, because they know they passed a tough test of their ability."

There is, of course, more than a little truth to this. A game that's too easy is dull, and one that's too hard is frustrating. That's a fundamental issue of (single-player) play balance, and one that designers struggle with in any game. This is an alternative to dynamic difficulty adjustment, of course; that's allowing players to select the difficulty level through the options menu. Scott dismisses this alternative, however:

"Also, my view is that as developers, it should be *our job* to properly play balance the game, not the player's choice. In other words, skill levels are an easy way out for developers too lazy or incompetent to properly play balance their own games. "

My first reaction to this is: How arrogant. Any game is a collaboration between the creators and the players, and the actual play experience emerges in the interplay between the two. Games are not like linear media; they're not a single experience imagined and implemented by the creators, but a structure that does restrict player action, but allows a wide range of actions within that structure. Taking away the freedom of a player to select a difficulty level is imposing a higher level of restriction--and in general, I prefer games with a higher, rather than lower, level of player freedom.

However, I do buy Scott's argument, so long as you restrict it to single-player, level based, fairly linear games like, say, Duke Nukem and Max Payne (for which Scott's company, 3D Realms, is best known).

Let's start by considering Civilization, a more open-ended and less linear game. I generally play the game on Prince level; at this level, the AI opponents, or some of them, manage to keep up with me over the course of the game, but rarely pose real problems for me, and I rarely lose. When I want a fairly relaxed experience, this is how I play. Occasionally, for a higher level of challenge, I'll play on King level; at this level, I often have to fight wars where there's a real chance I'll lose, and have to keep an eye on my opponents lest they outpace me technologically. But I still win more often than not. And rarely, I'll play on Emperor level; I generally get slagged here, but occasionally I'll win, and it feels pretty good to beat the game at the highest level of difficulty.

Now, if Civ had dynamic difficulty adjustment, I don't know which of these three settings the designer would choose--that is, whether he'd try to make the game a little bit of a challenge, a bit more of a challenge, or a real struggle. Naturally, he'd adjust the difficulty level to my level of gameplay--so that Karen, who normally plays at Warlord level, would face the same effective level of challenge--and that's fine. But I don't really want to play the game the way the designer forces me to. I want to select my difficulty.

Why would I appreciate dynamic difficulty adjustment in, say, Max Payne 2, but not in Civ 3? Because Max Payne is a one-time experience, a linear, level-based game. I want to get through it, I want to feel like I've been challenged, DDA would work for that. Civ 3, by contrast, is a highly replayable game, and indeed I've played it many times (and have had one version of Civ or another on my hard-drive since the release of the very first version). I want the ability to play a relaxed version or an intense one. The choice should be mine, not Sid's (or Jeff Briggs's, or Brian Reynolds's, or whoever actually served as lead designer on the title).

Or let's consider race games. Most race games do provide dynamic difficulty adjustment; in fact, you can generally look at the radar view, and see your opponents slowing down if you're struggling--or racing to catch up if you're ahead. This sucks, actually; it feels like the machine is cheating. It breaks the illusion of immersion. You'd be better off having a player-selectable setting; I suck at these games, I'd set it to easy, and I'd probably have a fine time. (Scott does mention breaking immersion as a possible drawback to dynamic difficulty adjustment, btw.)

And then we come to multiplayer. Suppose we had a version of Counter-Strike in which a player who was not doing as well suddenly "got help," hitting more easily and with more damage. In other words, llamas get buffed, and players with l33t skillz get nerfed. Boy, would that suck, and the players of the game would whine like banshees. The whole point of games like this is that they're head-to-head contests in which player skill rules. They wouldn't be improved by dynamic difficulty adjustment; they'd be destroyed.

Indeed, I'm willing to go out on a limb a bit, and say that dynamic difficulty adjustment should never play a role in any multiplayer game.

The truth, I think, is that dynamic difficulty adjustment is a useful technique, for some game styles, and at some times. It's an idea that should be part of any game designer's bag of tricks. But it isn't for all games, or even most; and it must be implemented with care and intelligence.





posted by Greg at 1:00 PM 1 comments

Eric Berlin writes:

"Hiya Greg. I continue to enjoy your blog, and now a question has come up that you or your readers will probably be able to answer:

"I am looking for three- or four-player checker variants to use in a
children's book I am editing. So far my research has turned up very, very little. My ideal game would use a standard checkerboard and the usual pieces -- no Special Flying Dragon piece or anything like that.

"Any ideas where I might find something like this?"

Can't think of anything off the top of my head--maybe a reader can help.

Have you posted an inquiry to rec.games.board, Eric? Might be worthwhile...
posted by Greg at 4:31 PM 1 comments

So Nintendo has announced the "DS," with essentially no details about it, except that it will have two screens, which they're pushing as "allowing totally new gaming experiences." Gamespy had some skeptical commentary; I actually think it's a fairly interesting feature. There are a slew of game styles that are hard to do on a handheld because of the small screen, and I can see some ways to use this capability--e.g., one screen for the radar view, one for the game view. Could be interesting.

But to look at what's out there now: GBA, which is a nice little device, but quite underpowered, and not connected. N-Gage, which is considerably more powerful, connects via both Bluetooth and a GSM air network, is overpriced, and launched poorly. The Tapwave Zodiac, which is also a nicely powered device with a pretty big screen, better engineered than the N-Gage, but ridiculously priced at $399 with a paltry assortment of games--and funded by a start-up, meaning they can't do the usual game industry trick of subsidizing the hardware and making it up on software platform royalties. Bluetooth connectivity, but not air network. The Sony PSP, which per announced specs is a fucking amazing device--WiFi connectivity, not Bluetooth or air network, and more powerful than a PS2. But it's also been announced as a $400 device, which is -way- too much for a handheld, and per rumor, will not be subsidized.

In short, Nintendo may not be as fucked as I previously thought. All they need to do is produce a decent new handheld: Not as powerful as the competition (although if you go two years out, you could probably do something at an N-Gage level for a much lower price, Moore's Law being what it is), but with a great list of launch titles, and some kind of connectivity. If they've got a better engineered version of N-Gage on the market in 2005 or 6, with a slate of Miyamoto and Sonic Team titles, priced at $99, they'll still own the handheld market. The Sony PSP will be just too damn expensive, except for the truly hardcore, Tapwave will have disappeared, and Nokia will probably still be trying to push N-Gage and getting nowhere.

Which is why the DS announcement is puzzling. Two screens? Cute, but not really what I want to hear. Is this the next generation for Nintendo handhelds, or is this a niche device? If it isn't the next generation, what is, and when will they announce it? And I want to know hardware specs--Nintendo tends to announce such things much later than other manufacturers, but I want to know where it stacks up against the competition, and something about the likely launch price.

We'll see, I guess.
posted by Greg at 12:52 PM 2 comments

I got the Genesis set up last night. Betsy, my 15 year-old, spent the evening playing Sonic and exclaiming how much fun it was. Of course, I got her a Genesis when she was 6, and she was basically replaying her childhood...

posted by Greg at 12:30 PM 1 comments

Okay, so I have the console and TV case built, and I bought the Pelican multi-A/V switch that Ben recommended. I've got the newer consoles--PS 2, Gamecube, Dreamcast, and 3DO--hooked up, everything works fine.

The Sega Genesis posed a problem at first, because the only connector I have ends in a coax connector, and while I could hook it up directly to the TV, I want to connect it to the switchbox, which only accepts input in more modern ways (red-yellow-white RCA, red-green-blue cable, and S-video). However, an eBay search turned up a new cable that connects to a Genesis 2 out (which the 32X, sitting on top of the Genesis itself, which is a Genesios 1, uses), and terminates in red-yellow-white RCA. Haven't gotten it yet, but one problem solved.

That leaves the Atari 2600 and the Magnavox Odyssey. In both cases, the cable out of the box is an old-fashioned, single-cable video RCA (oddly, male-terminated for the Atari and female-terminated for the Odyssey). And in both cases, they have an RFA adaptor that takes that as an in and terminates in flat leads you're supposed to screw onto an antenna connection. Only my modern TV doesn't have an antenna connection.

I went to Radio Shack, and the only thing they could offer was a device that you screw the antenna leads onto, and produces a coax out. I can't hook that up to the multi-A/V switch. What I really need to get out is the red-yellow-white RCA, or (more exotically) S-Video. Apparently, Radio Shack doesn't sell any such thing; they're used to people trying to attach new DVDs to older computers, so I can go from red-yellow-white RCA to coax, or even red-yellow-white to antenna leads, but not the other way around. I'm trying to attach an old device to a modern one, which I guess is not what most customers want.

Any suggestions?
posted by Greg at 5:43 PM 1 comments

Damn. Both Gamespot and Gamespydaily are reporting that "Atari" has shut down Legend Entertainment. Co-founded by Bob Bates, one of the most articulate designers in the industry, Legend was originally an adventure game developer (best known for Wheel of Time) but, when the bottom dropped out of adventure gaming, turned into an action game developer (with Unreal II).

Legend sold out to GT Interactive, which in turn was bought out by Infogrames, now "Atari." Atari certainly has its problems, and probably isn't all that interested in PC game development in general at present, but given the problems with some of its other studios, well, Legend isn't what =I'd= shutter first.

Ah well. Doubtless (snarkily) Bruno knows best.
posted by Greg at 11:14 AM 1 comments

So being a handy sort of fellow, I thought I'd design a case to hold a TV and a buncha game consoles in an efficient fashion. But I'm having some problems, and thought, hey, the blogosphere is often a source of good information.

Never mind the fact that the TV is 20" deep, and the widest standard piece of lumber is a 1x12 (which is actually 11 1/4" wide); I can double them up (or use a 1x12 and a 1x10), and put some 1x2's at the corner to hold them together.

The first problem is that the only AV multi-switch solution available at my local electronics retailer is a 4-input switch, and I'm anticipating up to a dozen possible console systems. That is, at present I have an Atari 2600, a PS 2, a GameCube, a Sega Genesis, a 3D0, a Dreamcast, and a CDIi, and am anticipating adding a NES, a SNES, and possibly a Ninetendo 64, a Sega Saturn, an XBox, and even such esoterica as a Magnavox Odyssey, an Atari Jaguar, and so on. In other words, what I really need is the ability to switch between at least ten devices, and more would be better. And some of the earlier devices don't have a standard VCR-style video out, but expect to screw onto the antenna connections.

Now, I've looked at some sites that purport to offer AV multi-switchers, but what they are touting are clearly designed for some kind of professional use, and I'm not 100% certain that they'll work for my needs; and I do need to figure this out first, because I'll need to accomodate the item, of whatever size, in the design for the cabinet.

So far, I'm thinking along these lines: One unit with a roughly 24"x24" upper compartment for the TV (yes, I could buy a flatscreen and take up less space, but I'm cheap that way; I loathe TV, and don't want to pay a lot of bucks for one, since it's largely a device to attach consoles to--and watch the occasional movie on). Below it, six compartments, each 12 inches wide and 8 inches high, arranged 2 x 3. Virtually all consoles will fit in a 12 inch compartment, and 8 inches gives ample room to stack controllers on top, or to pull the controllers and reach behind for a power switch if necessary.

There will be no back, to allow easy access for connection and power cables; I am thinking of screwing one or multiple power strips to the back to reduce cable clutter.

I'd also thought about leaving the sides open, since the TV requires a depth of around 20 inches, and in principle it would be possible to increase the number of storable compartments for consoles by having some at the front and some at the back, with side access. I decided against that, though, mainly because it would be awkward to have the controller cable coming out the side of the case to the player--and the CDi, at least, uses an IR controller, meaning the player must absolutely have line of sight to the device. Even for others, adding another foot of cable length to snake around the side of the case to the controller is awkward and probably infeasible. It's a shame, though, as few consoles are as much as 12" deep, and inherently, there will be a lot of space wasted under the TV.

If you've followed this so far, you may have understood that I'm proposing 6 consoles beneath the TV, and have discussed having a dozen or more connected to it. I anticipate an additional unit to the side of the main case with space for 6 additional consoles. For weight reasons--I may need to move someday--I want them in a separate case, but one placed next to the main one. That case will also only be 11 inches deep rather than 20 or so, taking up less space. And I expect to build a third case (or a third and fourth) to stack on top, with storage space for games, CDs, and DVDs.

So my immediate questions are:

1. What's the best solution for the AV switch problem? Any pointers to devices for sale? How to handle the archaic-device connection problem?

2. Any better ideas for using the otherwise wasted space beneath the TV?

3. Should I just give up and look at rack-mounted professional equipment?


posted by Greg at 6:58 PM 1 comments