Slashdot Mirror
User Created Content is Key for New Games
An anonymous reader writes to tell us that recently Valve Software's Doug Lombardi has stated his strong belief that user created content is a very important part of games in the near future. "'I would argue that it's the biggest component those guys have to get over if they want online to matter.' 'Half-Life 1 was okay as a multiplayer game and Team Fortress Classic was really good, but Counter-Strike kicked both their asses no question. And that came from a kid going to college in Canada and another kid going to high school in New Jersey, who had our code and thought it would be cool to play our game.'"
Don't make a map of your school. Apparently that makes you a threat.
is to give each player their own space and let them custimize it how they want. They can put pictures of their avatar, some fascinating facts about themselves, and maybe have their favorite song playing. They could even link to other players' spaces. I'm not sure what they'd call it, though.
U R in amaze of twisty little pasages, all a like
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuoOosTdFiY
Absolutely amazing graphics, still remember the shock other people had when Sony unveiled this game at GDC. There were a hell of a lot of developers who went back home after GDC and realized how far behind their level editing tools and rendering engines were.
Can't wait for this to be released later this year.
And it's not the near future it's already happened. Look at Quake. I played that game for years because of some user created content called Team Fortress.
I am glad that companies are starting to think about this stuff though. It would be nice if more games had good mod kits when they are released.
Between moddable multiplayer games, MMO's with player created structures, areas, and interactables (vendors and such), and any game with comprehensive map editors being around for ages, is this even a question?
I'm pretty sure we've all known that without a massive potential for replayability in the original title, the only thing that keeps a game alive long term is the user created interactions and content (barring companies that keep ongoing updates and patch, like Cavedog did with TA back in the day [although that also had user created content]).
Ice Cream has no bones.
I think games are getting much better about the offerings of their mod(ding) tools. With many of the older games it was simple level editors, now with games like NWN2 you get access to much of the underlying engine allowing mods as simple as maps or as complex as adding whole new graphics, game rules and more. And it's much easier than most non-programmers would think.
Are they just realizing this now? Hell, I remember modding Wolfenstein3D when I was younger. I made a Castlevania mod, if you were wondering (and I know you were).
Point being, user-generated content has always been a big part of all the best PC games; FPS's, Strategy games, you name it. When users can mod the game, they become attached to it and it develops a much more cohesive and less fickle user-base and expands the longevity of the product.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
What I would like to know:
If Valve wants user input so badly, when why didn't they listen to their users of CS 1.6 then? Valve was retarded and decided to put in-game ads into CS 1.6, and they don't fully support it any longer.
It sounds like they want the users to give them the good ideas to build the game off of so they can sell more copies. I don't think that most users want to give their work away to Valve for nothing. They'd rather give it to the gaming community as a whole for use. Maybe Valve should truly accecpt input from users and have a set price they pay out to those who submit ideas that are actually used. Wait, nevermind... they could change the ideas just enough to claim originality and then not pay.
Sounds like the user-created aftermarket is still the best alternative.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that engaging, high-quality content is key for new video games.
If that content comes from users, great. If it comes from paid professionals, great.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
Every day I am amazed at how well console system do especially now that they cost as much as a decent laptop. When I was a kid they were great but as I got older I wanted more involved games especially MMO's. Consoles did not offer this and even now it is only sub-par. The controls are preset barely customizable and the lack of hotkeys drives me nuts. I did not own my first PC until 95 (Was actually a PPC) which I used for playing MUDS/Mtrek mainly which were significantly more complex than any console I had played before. Actually learning how to write scripts in TinTin++ was a blast.
As the cost of computers came down more and more people have bought computers and we constantly see quotes concerning the increase of households that have 1+ computers I have no idea if the original Nintendo had more market penetration than lets say Play Station 2. Has the console market grown or shrunk over the last 20 years? I assume it has grown but is its rate exponentially larger than the PC market, about the same or far smaller? Are the amount of game titles being released increasing or decreasing? Basically there has really been nothing in the console market to hold my interest in its welfare with the exception of "God of War" but I am not going to pay hundreds of dollars to play just one title.
The customization available in PC games IMHO makes them a much better and barely more expensive platform. In addition you can actually use your computer for other important stuff "Like surfing Porn".
If each player modifies a multiplayer game so much who else will be able to play with them? Or would want to?
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I've said for years that the feature that made the original Doom so popular wasn't the 3d graphics or deathmatch, but rather the fact that people could easily make their own levels.
The industry focused on the graphics (which were remarkable for the day), and the format (FPS) thinking that those were the keys to popularity, and neglected customizability.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
This is why Starcraft is so awesome. The last time I played an official Blizzard map while not on a mod was ages ago.
The submitter left out a very important word in his summary. This article is about console games. The first sentence in the article is:
He's saying that consoles are way behind general purpose computers in online play. One of the big advantages that computers have always had is customizability and user-generated maps and mods. The online experience of consoles will remain a poor shadow of the computer game ecosystem until they enable and allow the players to share in the extension of their games.
This is a big reason why I haven't bought a full-size console since the Atari 2600. Two years after I got the Atari I also got a Texas Instruments 99/4A. I loved the ability to do wild things like save games, download levels from online bulletin boards, and even program simple games myself. Nowadays I enjoy playing Use Map Settings games in Starcraft and have created several maps of my own. That game is ten years old but still megafun due to the user-generated maps.
AlpineR
The ability of users to create custom content (in addition to the three-platform releases) was a huge key to Neverwinter Nights's success.
While the official campaigns were great, all the longtime NWN players I know have spent countless hours playing on user-created and -hosted persistent worlds and user-created campaigns from places like The Vault. I can't think of many other games that are still being bought and played this long after their releases, and the ones that are probably fall into this category as well.
Whirled seems to go exactly in that direction, where the content created by its players is the king. Some games have meaning by themselves, but if your game is essentially what you and other players adds to it, possibilities are endless.
And that came from a kid going to college in Canada and another kid going to high school in New Jersey
Haha. He says that as if being from Canada or New Jersey is akin to being in the special olympics or something.
One of the reasons SWG was so freakin barren in regards to anything to do is because the expectation was for users to create their own content. Raph Koster wanted to make a sandbox and then have the players create the cities and PVP fight for the rest of the content. I hope to God nobody ever expects that level of user created content to carry a game again.
Designing maps for a FPS, that is good.
Designing mods to extend a game, that is good.
Not providing anything to do except have 'users create their own content' is bad.
-- toolie
It'll never happen. Allowing users to create their own content and distribute it to other players would completely destroy the ability of game companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Microsoft to overcharge for half-assed map packs, expansion modules, downloadable songs, etc.
If companies want to have more user generated content for their games, particularly when they themselves release "for sale" expansion modules ala the Neverwinter Nights series, then they must allow the copyrights to remain with the creators AND they have to give the creators a piece of the action when their content is featured in the "for sale" download area. The problem with Neverwinter Nights and other games is that they state in the license agreement that any content that you produce for their game becomes their property when you distribute it and they can re-distribute it as much as they want and even charge for it without giving you any royalties. If the companies want good user generated content then they must allow users to earn money off of their content and maintain rights to the content that they (the users) create.
We asked the three top consoles, what's the key for new games:
:(
XBOX360: Well, hot detailed graphics are definitely a key.
PS3 [looks in question list]: Hey! That's my line, you jerk! Anyway.. Blue Ray's a key too. You can make bigger games on Blue Ray to fit all the hot graphics, so I can have hotter graphics than any of you guys.
Wii and XBOX360: Yea.. Sure.. [chuckling].
XBOX360: Micro-transactions are a key as well. We sell gamers crippled games, and make them pay to buy assets. It's kinda like Scientology: by the time you understand it's all a bunch of bull, you've already paid, so you gotta keep playing and paying. Aaa.. and... and.. it also makes gaming more engaging, and bitter, just like real life is.
PS3: User content is also key. You allow the gamers to create anything they want in a game, guns, cars, roads... Wait.. this kinda doesn't fly with transactions...
XBOX360: Shhhh... damn it! Another key is online gameplay. I integrate all games with consistent online experience, which builds a great community of gamers.
PS3: Me too!
XBOX360: You too what?
PS3: I build a clone of your service by integrating a clone of Second Life in my clone exp.. I mean core experience.
XBOX360: Oh.. right...
Wii: A key in new games, and old games, is fun an inventive gameplay, you guys. You shouldn't forget that.
XBOX360 and PS3: Hahahaha. Idiot...
Wii: And new fun ways to interface with game with innovative sensor controller!
XBOX360: Hahahaha, you're making our day, Wii.
PS3: [hides the 6-axis controller behind his back] Hu-hu-hu