Naval Simulator of the Year

The first Assassin’s Creed established a very good game: A nicely flowing assassination parkour game. There was a fun free-running, which was very well executed, a clever, if a bit amusing, social stealth system, and cool as hell assassinations. Apart from some user interface problems and some pacing issues the game was perfect.

But therein lies a problem: The game was difficult to improve. Assassin’s Creed II did so by tweaking the user interface and adding more personality into the main character, but veered off course by adding things that detracted from the main gameplay that I’ve known to love and expect: A simple economy system and more collectibles. But still the core gameplay was there: Identifying an assassination target, plotting a way to get to said target, stealthing along said way, performing the assassination itself, and then hastily extracting yourself from the situation.

Then, as the series progressed, the designers realised that the assassination was going to get stale. So they added more things. Chariots. Land purchasing. More collectibles. Side missions. Prince of Persia-styled parkour. Treasure hunting. These were very well executed, but soon started to dilute the whole package.

And this dilution culminated in Assassin’s Creed III. The game no longer had much assassinations, nor creeds. It did have lots of exploring, collecting, crafting, buying (which both had an atrocious user interface), hunting, and very surprisingly, naval combat (which was excellent; I would gladly play an actual game with those controls). Most of the time I was running from an irrelevant side quest to another and collecting stuff. I probably assassinated more animals than people.

And the worst of the worst was that it no longer venerated the Assassin’s Creed’s assassination arc. In one assassination mission, you do not get to manually extract. Connor stealths across an active battlefield to the enemy commander’s camp and assassinates him on his horse as he is making a speech to the troops. Then, just as I was wondering on how I would get out of the situation, the game cuts to black when the british troops arrive, and continues when Connor has gotten back to camp! That was one of the activities I liked most in the series; Outrunning the entire enemy army and then stealthing your way out of the occupied area where everyone is looking for you!

Assassin’s Creed has come to its end as a series, I feel. Plotwise, the main story is over, though seeds for a new one have been sown. I feel that continuing to keep the series’ main premise would be folly: Freerunning and assassinating things with the hidden blade are starting to feel stale, and I can’t think of an interesting way to keep it fresh. What I would do now would be to try something different. Perhaps a game where you play as a Templar and try to forge order into the new world. Shift focus into the world, and try to make it a living, changing thing and not just a backdrop for the player. Yes, a Templar agent, forming a network of allies and confidantes, identifying key figures and corrupting them. Avoiding Assassins on the rooftops. Would be an interesting shift of perspective, and it would definitely shake up the good freedom versus evil order-morality of the series.

Templar’s Conduct.

Picking a better pocket

So, pick-pocketing.

Only in one game have I seen pickpocketing done well: Assassin’s Creed. In the original one, I tended to often be short on insta-killing throwing knives. In those cases I started to keep an eye open for mercenaries, who wandered the streets. When I spotted one, I locked on and moved behind him. The screen focused on the mark, making the crowds and buildings a blur. Avoiding the people and slowing down when the mark looked around I inched closer. And when I was close enough, I extended my hand towards his belt. And finally, the prize was mine. Pocketing the knives, I turned around and walked away as the mercenary slowly started to pat his belt. Assassin’s Creed showed two facets that I see are important to making pickpocketing fun: Effort and rewards.

First, rewards. As I stated, trowing knives tend to run out fast in AC, and one of the easiest ways to get more is pick-pocketing. This makes it necessary to pick pockets from time to time (outside designated pick-pocketing sidequests). Many games throw in pick-pocketing as a side thought, and therefore do not give much value for the activity. In Neverwinter Nights, I remember once pick-pocketing a single Ring of Protection at the beginning of the game. That was the most valuable loot I have ever stolen. Many characters who have something tended to just have negligible amount of money, which is not a suitable reward for the effort that picking a pocket takes.

So, effort. Many Infinity Engine games (Baldur’s Gates, Neverwinter Nights…) used the classic d20 method of picking a pocket: Rolling a single skill check. I don’t remember/know how AD&D did it, but modern incarnations had the following: You roll Sleight of Hand, and succeed if your check is over 20. The target rolls Spot and if he rolls over your check, he notices the action. This is an incredibly merciless system, since you need at least 10 points in SoH to have a 50/50 chance of succeeding in taking something, and even then the target may notice. In a tabletop environment the DM  is interpreting the situation and can craft a sensible and working solution to the situation. But in a video game, the default solution is to have the target become hostile towards the thief, and that creates the problem.

Since picking a pocket requires the target not to be hostile, they are usually either allies to the player, or a neutral party. And in Baldur’s Gates, the targets with any potential loot tend to be high-level characters. And they tend to have high Spot. So if you try to pick-pocket for example a captain of the guard, he most likely notices you and attacks. If you fight back, all the NPC allies of the captain also turn hostile. Most likely you just die. And if you do manage to kill the guards, you have either now pissed of about 70% of the city you were in, or most likely killed an important, plot-related NPC. So you have now two options: Accept that due to the low morality of the heroes of the Sword Coast, they have failed in their quest, allowing the main bad guy to plunge the world into evil, or load the game. This means that usually pick-pocketing is just rolling dice and loading until you manage to get something from the target, which is a boring, time-consuming task.

So how would I implement pick-pocketing? First of all, I understand that making a sensible reaction for an NPC that notices the thievery is extremely hard, if not impossible. That’s why I would eliminate the possibility of getting noticed. I would give each NPC in the world a stat called “Suspectibility to Pickpocketing”, which is a number from 1 to 3 (or whatever range I have my skills in). If your rogue has equal or higher pickpocketing skill, he automatically succeeds in stealing something. If he does not, he does not even try (that guy looks alert. Better pass this one). Like lockpicking in Dragon Age II.

Then I would add rewards. In Dragon Age Origins, pickpocketing was a skill that was grouped with Persuasion, Lockpicking and crafting skills. As Persuasion leads to discovering more lore, getting more experience and rewards, and getting side quests, then pickpocketing would have to offer the same. In this case I would grant experience every time the player picks a pocket, increased loot and occasionally giving the player option to carry out a quest by picking a couple of pockets.

So that would be how I would manage pickpocketing in an Infinity game. But let’s widen the scope a bit. Assassin’s Creed II: Revelations had a maneuver called Counter-Stealing. It was like a counterattack, except you stole whatever your opponent was carrying. In Revelations this was a bit useless maneuver, but there is a game I would have loved to have something like this: Dragon Age II. Some of the tougher enemies in DA II quaff a healing potion when they are down in HP. I would love to have my Rogue have a skill that would stun an enemy and steal any combat items it has, like bombs or potions. This would make pickpocketing a tactical combat maneuver worthy of consideration. Disarming enemies would probably go to the same category, perhaps as an upgrade. It might sound like a game-breaker, but that’s just a matter of balancing it.

Another thing in Assassin’s Creed Revelations are the hired group of thieves. They automatically loot bodies while following you, and give you the money found. That would be quite a nifty ability: Have the rogue of your group automatically pick some pockets while you are travelling. This way you can concentrate on your quests and won’t need to press at every bloody peasant on the streets to get use out of your expensive ability.

So now you should have principles with which to make a useful, modern, streamlined  rogue in your fantasy game. You’re welcome. Next time something else.

And you probably have discovered that I changed the visual layout of this blog. If so, good for you.

 

Improving the perfect

Fun, but empty

Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood. It’s a game that triggered my scepticsm alert. How could Ezio’s story get any more interesting after the ending of Assassin’s Creed II, which was monocle-poppingly surprising? The answer is: It really doesn’t. But the meat of the game’s story are the small revelations in Desmond’s.

Nevertheless, I bought it and have been playing it, mostly because it’s a better game than Witcher 2. It has more interesting interactivity and the game world is consistent (via cheating, as it is made by the Animus). But as I have played it more and more, I’m starting to see the development history of the game and it’s series. And what I’m seeing is somewhat disheartening. The game world is full of ultimately meaningless stuff. Three types of collectibles, two time-sink gameplay elements and two types of hidden places. Plus all the side missions, both small and large. The main storyline is suffocating under the free sandbox stuff. As I was running around, collecting Borgia flags and feathers while waiting for my investments to pay off so I could buy more landmarks, I began to compare Brotherhood to the original Assassin’s Creed, which I was playing simultaneously, and Assassin’s Creed II.

The first Assassin’s Creed was a new game. The concept and the gameplay were untested and the usual deadline cut off some of the planned features. But all of the more important mechanics were incorporated. The result was a success: The half-scifi story was interesting, the free-running felt wonderful and the assassinations were golden. The game had a slew of simple submissions, all of which offered new information about the target of each primary target. There were also collectible flags, but they were hidden in the huge game areas without any clues and finding them was the job of a madman. The subgames also tended to repeat themselves, but that wasn’t a big problem. The assassinations were relatively rare, so the fun parts had to be patiently seeked out. But overall, the mistakes did not topple the game.

Now Ubisoft had an engine. Everyone were waiting for a sequel a bit closer in the history. Ubisoft made a new game that fixed all that did not work in the previous game and added more features. The result was Assassin’s Creed II. To me, that was perfect. The freerunning was sleeker, fighting better, missions more interesting and there were few things to do that were not related to the main storyline. I played it, unlocked 100%. Then I waited for another game in the series, perhaps the rumoured one where you play as a female Assassin in London during the second world war.

But firearms would change the game. Assassin’s have always leapt on their target, employing the hidden blade to strike their necks. In a time of swords and bows that would work with a bit of suppression of disbelief. But in the time where death is dealt with ranged weapons, how can we get the same feeling? The answer is: With work. And time. But the Assassin’s Creed brand did not have time. To prevent it from fading from the publicity, a new game would have to enter the fray. An expansion. And that game was Brotherhood.

Assassin’s Creed II was already perfect. There was nothing to improve, only add. So Ubisoft added. They added features. The Assassin student mechanic. The Leonardo Da Vinci’s war machine vehicle sections. The Global Rome Economy thing. And more elaboration on Ezio’s life after the Revelation. None of those things improved the game: They are merely time sinks, designed to keep the player playing. As they served no greater purpose, I resented them. Especially when they eat more of my time than designed. I’m looking at you, Tank’s full synchronization. Brotherhood feels like it is just an overblown expansion with nothing substantial to give. (Though I reserve the right to change my mind, as I have not finished it yet.)

And now, Assassin’s Creed Revelations. More of Ezio. I have enough of him. I want to be a new Assassin, in a new time. Even though the gameplay would probably have to change to accomodate the evolving technology, I would still like a new take on the series. Because this well is dry.

Silverstream, Part Two

First off, the controls. I think the control scheme from Assassin’s Creed would fit the bill, with slight modifications, mostly concerning combat. There would be three stances: Low, High and Aim. Low stance would be the default stance, where Cairne moves slowly and uses short-range attacks and discreet Force powers. High stance would be a fast stance, mostly used when a situation calls for fast movement. In High Stance, Cairne will use overt Force powers. In Aim stance, Cairne stops and auto-target targets from afar, mostly to use Force powers and deflecting blaster bolts.

Since I wish to bring sense into lightsaber combat, nearly every enemy in the game will be either fully functional or disabled. No hit points. When an enemy is in close range, about five meters, pressing the attack button will cause Cairne to charge with his lightsaber, killing the enemy instantly. Think about the Plasma Sword from the Halo series. In extreme close range Cairne will just slash with his weapon without the charge-effect. This way the player will feel like an invincible warrior monk, instead of a woodcutter.

Whenever an enemy shoots at the player, Cairne will automatically block the blaster bolt or missile or whatever. But every hit will reduce his concentration, which regenerates when not under attack. When his concentration reaches zero, a blaster bolt hits, killing the Jedi. As Cairne takes fire, the edges of the screen will darken/brighten, communicating to the player that he needs to get to cover. I imagine this would look pretty good.

The player would have one button for jumping, one button for lightsaber attacks and two for Force; One button for kinetic powers and another for other powers. Most of these actions would be context-sensitive and would depend on the Stance. On Low stance, the lightsaber attacks would be precise stabs and slashes that would cut limbs and incapacitate enemies. Kinetic Force would be used to disarm enemies by yanking away weapons and knocking them over, and other Force would blind opponents temporarily. On High stance, lightsaber attacks would be wild and flashy, kinetic Force would push back and knock over enemies and other Force would be horror-inducing visages. Aim stance would enable lightsaber tossing, a dangerous maneuver since it leaves the player open, telekinetic object tossing and some other Force power that needs targeting.

So that’s the controls, basically. A mix of Assassin’s Creed and melee of Halo.

As stated, the game has two primary choice axis: The Force alignment and the fate of Saladrin. The choices made to help either the government or the rebels are made simply by fighting alongside either group in randomly generated skirmishes, explained later, and selecting plot-related missions for one of the sides. But the Force alignment is more insiduous. The choice to embrace the Dark Side is not an explicit statement, I believe. No-one just decides to become a Dark Jedi and starts to kill people and be a jerk. The path to the Dark Side is subtle, manifesting in the use of power, bouts of rage and abandonment of consideration and restrain, growing ever greater until the Jedi is beyond the point of return. So instead of giving the player options that give him Light Side Points or Dark Side Points like in the Knights of the Old Republic, we will observe the player’s playing style.

The Jedi avoid unnecessary conflict and try to minimise casualties and damage. They would identify leaders and critical personnel in combat and disable them, demoralising the opposition. They would use the Force only to defend themselves, for using Force to kill a living being is to corrupt and pervert it. To revel in its might and thoughtlessly killing enemy combatants and innocents would be to invite the Dark Side. Therefore, every second the player remains in High stance he gains Dark Side Influence (DSI). He also gains it every time he kills a living enemy, uses High Force powers and uses any Force to kill he gains DSI. Every moment when the player is not in High Stance, he loses it. When the player gains enough, he gains a semi-permanent Dark Side Point, which goes away in time. Every Dark Side Point modifies Cairne in some way. His attack speed and Force effects improve, but he begins to lose his grace, replacing it with barely-contained rage. Eventually he replaces his other Force attacks with iconic Dark Side Powers, like Force Lightning and Force Choke. At some points his default dialogue would also change, from calm and precise, to questioning and emotional, to threatening and self-centered. The effect that I’m after is that in combat and plot-related dialogue, if the player does not wish to slip to the Dark Side he has to be serene. As the enemies tend to have liutenants and commanders, eliminating them would be enough to halt attackers. The player would need to avoid unnecessary combat, use Force sparingly and restrain themselves. Like “real” Jedi. But since over combat is more efficient with High stance and Force use, and one of the themes in the story is the Gray Jedi philosophy of treading the line between light and dark, the player is wordlessly encouraged to push the limits. The trick is that the DSI is not showed to the player, generating an air of uncertaintly. Ideally the player would realise the consecuences of his playing style the first time Cairne strangles someone instead of blinding them, possibly either prompting them to play extra carefully to reduce the Dark Side Points or to embrace his choices fully, surrendering into the darkness.

Next time, world mechanics and mission structure.

The Hit Point problem

I have been playing Assassin’s Creed II. It has been enjoyable, if a little collectible-heavy. But combat in it is reminded me of what I call Hit Point Problem, described in an earlier post. In short: The way video games simulate damage to a human body is stupid.

In Ninja Gaiden Black, Ryu Hyabusa jumps around, slashing enemies with his dragon-bone-katana, spraying blood everywhere. A normal human armed with body armour and an assault rifle can be launched in the air with the blade alone, slashed with it a couple of times and left to fall down a couple of meters. The result would be that he lands in a pool of his own blood, rises back up and proceeds to shoot at Ruy, completely oblivious to the several katana strikes that just went through his body. This might have been a very polarized example, but in Dragon Age you can stab a person in the back several times before he decides to die, and that game isn’t as… Lively as Ninja Gaiden.

Assassin’s Creed does it right… mostly. When a player manages to reduce an opponent’s hit points, Ezio strikes at him with his sword, forcing the enemy to block and take a step back. When the enemy loses his last hit point, he lets his guard down and Ezio connects with his sword, drawing blood and sending him to the pavement. Although unrealistically flashy, it looks more believable than take-a-poleaxe-to-the-forehead-Ryu. And they did that just by changing the hit animation.

The whole beauty falls apart with Ezio himself, though. When a player screws up a counter-attack, the enemy’s weapon connects with him, drawing blood but not doing anything else, besides reducing hit points. And when an enemy archer hits Ezio with an arrow, he just takes it and grunts, instead of falling to the ground in pain. Ugh. A few changes to the animations would have been enough.

There is a guy called Shamus Young, who runs a pretty nifty blog. If nerd culture, game design and programming are your thing, check it out. In one of his posts, he acknowledged the hit point problem and made a concept combat system which I stole for a few of my earlier ideas. One of those shone through to me, and I’ll share it with you, dear readers… Soon. But next time, I will continue my primer to it.