Finally, the cat is out of the bag -- one of our new game IPs, 'Earth No More', has been revealed in this month's Game Informer magazine. It's really exciting to finally be able to acknowledge the game's existence, even if it's far too early to discuss any details publicly.

I will say that I just got back from my second trip to Finland since we started working with Recoil. They are a really talented studio and it's a great pleasure to work with them -- I've never worked with such a collaborative group of people. (Also, they are hiring.) We always get a ton of work done during these trips, and we always part ways feeling even more excited and energized about the game than before.

In some of the comments and forum posts related to the Earth No More (very) early sneak peak, I can see there is some confusion surrounding the nature of 3DR's relationship with Recoil in this project -- did 3DR create the IP, did Recoil create the IP, are we 'developing' the game or are we 'producing' the game, etc. The short answers is -- yes. :)

As I mentioned in my recent Gamasutra interview, our relationship with external studios is fundamentally collaborative. The Earth No More game concept was created through a healthy, strong collaboration between Recoil and 3DR. They did not bring the concept to us, we did not bring the concept to them. We got together, both parties knowing that we wanted to create a game concept that would hit very specific gameplay, story, and character hooks, and Earth No More is what was created through that exciting (and ongoing) process.

As a game concept creation and production house, we live in the dual worlds of 'development' (perhaps more in the film industry sense of the word than in the game industry sense of the word) and 'production' (focused on high-level guidance for gameplay, aesthetic, storylines and characters, branding and positioning, etc.). Since we're one of only a handful of game companies championing this specific relationship with independent teams, I can see why it might not fit into the traditional notion of what a developer is or does, and why people might find the relationship confusing.

In any case, I hope you find the preliminary info about Earth No More intriguing. I'm really excited about how it's shaping up.

My quick Q&A with Gamasutra's Jason Dobson went live today. Seems like he only caught about 50% of the stuff we talked about, but maybe I just rambled on way more than I thought (those who know me realize this is entirely possible, of not likely).

In any case, as expected people are whipped into a frenzy about (there not being) any breaking DNF news (hey, it's not my news to break!), but hopefully it'll get people wondering about our next announcement (coming soon!).

Recently I inadvertently stirred up some hot debate in the IGDA forums (and Gamasutra editor Simon Carless' blog, Game Set Watch) regarding my thoughts on 360 Achievements. The crux of my feeling about Achievements is that, while they are cool and add an interesting layer of external reward to *some* types of games, they can also (in my opinion) distract and detract from the experience offered by other types of games.

Specifically, I think for exploratory (multi-linear), competitive, or puzzle games, Achievements make a lot of sense. They in some ways replace the antiquated idea of the 'high score', popularized by arcade games. Back then, games didn't have much to offer in terms of intrinsic rewards -- gameplay was largely repetitive, and the primary reward (outside the enjoyment of the actual game) was to be able to attain a high score and, ultimately if you were good enough, get your three initials in the coveted top-10 list.

But, for the kind of gamer I am and the kinds of games I prefer (character-driven narrative based), I find Achievements to be largely a distraction. Call me a purist, but I feel that for games with strong storylines, the reward is really to see what happens next. To find out what happens to that character, or to see how you save the girl, or how the villian foils you at every turn, etc. I don't think having an (often arbitrary) set of external rewards really adds much to that experience, and in fact I think it can take away from the narrative cohesion of the game by encouraging you to explore atypical game behaviours.

Some people argue that encouraging this exploration is a Good Thing (tm), and for some games I would agree with them. Dead Rising is an example, in my opinion, of a game where the concept of exploratory gameplay (rewarded by Achievements) really resonates with the core of the experience. You are in a vast mall. Almost everything is interactive. You are surrounded by thousands of zombies. At some point, you are going to need to pick up that baseball bat/potted plant/shower head/patio umbrella/skateboard and beat on zombies. The game is about trying unusual things, in an order of your choosing, so rewarding "atypical" behaviours does make a lot of sense. It fits. The whole game is an atypical behaviour.

But, take a game like Half-Life 2 or Shadow of the Collossus, and tell me how Achievements would make those games better (for HL2, we have only to wait for the Orange Box to find out). Finish a level only using the crowbar (10 points). Drive over 50 Antlions with the Dune Buggy (10 points). Get through the entire game without looking at Alyx's ass (100 points). I just don't see how Achievements are going to make the game any better than it already is.

Another thing I dislike about the concept of Achievements is that it commodifies your gaming experience. It's placing a value on how you play your games. An example of where this went terribly wrong (for me) was when I completed Call of Duty 3's single-player campaign and only received 250/1000 points. If I wanted more points, I would have to either replay the entire campaign at a different difficulty level (are we *still* doing that??? is it going to be that different the second time around?), or replay missions using bizarre atypical behaviours, like only using bolt-action rifles, only using rifle butts to kill enemies, etc. Stuff I would *never* do in so-called normal gameplay. Instead of feeling rewarded for investing time and energy in completing the campaign, I felt cheated. My investment in the game is only worth 25% of the points (but hey, I still had to pay 100% of the price!).

There are things about Achievements that I really like and appreciate. I think for some games they make a ton of sense and they can add some entertainment value. I also get that some people (many, apparently) are quite competitive and love to be able to show off to their friends (look! I got 10 consecutive active reloads in Gears...I p0wned you!). But, Achievements aren't only being used in the games that benefit from them. They are being used by ALL games, because it's part of the platform and Microsoft requires that you have them in your 360 title.

Don't force arbitrary value systems on me, and I won't ask you to add a storyline and characters to your Geometry Wars clone.