the Hushed Casket

There's an article at Wired.com today that gives a very thorough look into the way Halo 3 is being scientifically tuned by studying gamers during testing. If you haven't already read it, it's an awesome read, and you can get to it here. Unfortunately, there's a lot in the article that makes my skin crawl. Namely, that it appears Halo 3 is being tuned for the least common denominator gamer (e.g. your grandmother). What's worse is that while the article says Bungie recognizes the shortcomings of Halo 2, it goes on to provide evidence that they are doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Here's some excerpts.

Quote:

He points to a bunch of grenades lying on the ground. She ought to be picking those up and using them, he says, but the grenades aren't visible enough. "There's a million of them, but she just missed them, dammit. She charged right in." He shakes his head. "That's not acceptable."

This is the first of many examples that prompts me to question why the game is considered the culprit when a gamer can't figure out the correct strategy. Aren't we supposed to have to think to progress through a game? If I wanted to simply hit a button until I completed something I'd just install some software and get my fix on the "next" button.

Quote:

"That enemy can kill the player in three shots," he says. "Imagine your mother playing, where she's barely learning how to move around in the game — bam, bam, bam — dead. That's not going to be a fun experience."

Did he really just use the infamous "mother" or "grandmother" analogy? I remember the same thing being said about Halo 2, that it was tested so a larger variety of gamers, including post-menopausal women, would be able to play. How far do you lower your standards to attract a minimal new audience?

Quote:

In the end, Halo 2 was a less complex, less satisfying game than the first Halo. In the original, players had three equally powerful ways to attack: gun, grenade, or punch attack — the "golden tripod," as Jamie Griesemer, Bungie's head of gameplay design, dubbed it. Like a game of rock-paper-scissors, part of the fun was frantically deciding which method would work best. But in Halo 2, the designers decided to let players wield two guns, an option so overpowering that players rarely used any other form of attack. Perhaps worst of all, Bungie's team didn't have time to finish their story. Halo 2 ended with Master Chief announcing that he's returning to Earth and "finishing this fight" against the alien force. Then... nothing. The credits roll. It was as if the coders had simply turned off their computers and walked away. In public, Bungie employees put on a brave face, but privately they were chagrined. "Just as the game was going out the door, everybody was kind of like, Holy shit — this is not what we like here," recalls Brian Jarrard, Bungie's head of community relations.

OK, this is looking more promising. They recognize some of their mistakes and are correcting them.

Quote:

Take what happened last March: A report noted an unusual number of "suicides" among players piloting the alien Wraith tank in an upper level. After watching dozens of archived test games, Griesemer spotted the problem. The players were firing the tank's gun when its turret was pointed toward the ground, attempting to wipe out nearby attackers. But the explosion ended up also killing (and frustrating) the player. To prevent this, Griesemer reprogrammed the tank so that the turret couldn't be lowered beyond a certain point. The Wraith suicides stopped.

Priceless. Because some people can't figure out that shooting the ground next to them with a powerful weapon like the Wraith isn't a good idea, Bungie removes our ability to wield full control over the Wraith. Why can't I deliberately use this suicide maneuver to take out a couple "too-close" enemies when I'm guarding the flag carrier on my team, it's 2-2, and he just needs to make it another 100 feet for the win? Like so many things in a system set up to force equality, the astute are limited by rules created for the simpleton.

Quote:

In the lab, Pagulayan pulls up an early map of Jungle; on it are superimposed the locations of about 30 testers after half an hour of play. The dots are scattered throughout the terrain. This, he says, is bad: It means that people were wandering aimlessly instead of progressing through the level. "People were lost," Pagulayan says. "There wasn't much deep analysis to do here."

To solve such problems, the designers must subtly direct player movement by altering the world in small ways. In this case, they decided to change the geography of the Jungle level so that in certain places players had to jump down a steep ledge to reach the next area. This way people can't go backward, because they can't climb back up the ledges. Pagulayan shows me a map from the next testing round, after the fix was implemented — and sure enough, all the dots are clustered in tight bunches, right where they are supposed to be.

I guess those of us who enjoy exploring levels with total freedom are out of luck. Dumb and Dumber couldn't figure out how to proceed through the campaign, so the developers constrain everyone.

Quote:

Soon, though, I get confused; I try to follow one of my comrades up a short cliff, but I can't scale it. It takes me five minutes to figure out that I'm supposed to go around instead...

"We've had participants spend 30 minutes trying to climb up there." He thinks the designers will need to make it easier, maybe adding a little arrow to show the correct route.

Sure, make it easier. What else should we expect by now?

Quote:

It takes me a while to figure out which button controls my melee attack...He also picked up my confusion over the melee attack button. Other testers are having the same problem, and Bungie is not yet sure how to fix it.

You've got to be fluffy kidding me. They. are. confused. about. which. button. melees. Does anyone else see anything wrong here? Here's an idea: read the fluffy manual!!! Or how about this: press every button until you find the one that melees!!! I count about 13 available buttons on the Xbox 360 controller. You don't have to be a scientist to construct a plan for executing that test.

These are the people that Bungie is "fine tuning" their product for.

If I am a fine chef and I want to put my best dish to the test, who should I invite to sample it and make recommendations? Should I grab the first person off the street who's diet normally consists of fried lard covered in gravy? Or perhaps, should I ask a food critic who's sampled other fine cuisine and knows what a truly spectacular dish should contain? Perhaps a fellow chef who is also adept at culinary creations?

Products dumbed down to the lowest common denominator may have mass market appeal, but they will never be great. Bungie has a chance to further cement their place in electronic entertainment history with the release of Halo 3. The author of the above cited article correctly termed Halo "the Star Wars of the thumbstick generation." In 30 years will Halo 3 be remembered as "A New Hope" or "Attack of the Clones?"

Be undead

User login

the Hushed Casket

Halo 3: So Easy a Caveman Can Do It

Reply

Shout Box

Recent popular content

THX elsewhere

Archive

New content

Recent comments