Game Theory

[FaustWolf]

I keep wanting to start this thread with a cute anecdote about what "game theory" typically means in academia but I always end up with no time to make a nice introduction for it. So screw the intro, and here goes -- videogames have played a huge part in all our lives. In the same way that we are all armchair economists and armchair politicians, so we all have a little game designer inside. If I remember correctly we even have some DigiPen alumni here, and games will actually be what puts bread on the table for them.

There's so much ground we could cover in this discussion: ideas about different types of gameplay mechanics that haven't been tried yet; the balance between scenario design and player interactivity with the game world, and how videogame scenario design therefore differs from movie and book scenario design; where true Survival Horror went awry; 2D vs. 3D vs. immersive virtual reality; copyright law and the role of interactive fanworks; etc, etc.

But first I thought we might start off with something a bit more mundane, and that's the latest industry news ("latest" meaning I discovered it five minutes ago and I'm probably actually the last one to realize it), and that is that the videogame console as we know it is set to expire. That's right, Yoichi Wada himself gave the entire traditional videogame distribution model a Cease and Desist order.

How will the world change as a result of this likely evolution in the industry? Is it even all that likely?

As a matter of consumer convenience I welcome the idea. I think the last time I actually fired up a console was in 2006, since emulation on a computer is so much more convenient IMO. However, when I think of all the people who might be employed in physically manufacturing videogames currently, I'm given great pause: these people will likely be completely out of work in three to five years, or however long it's going to take for Wada's prophecy to pass. I wonder if rank-and-file game manufacturing and retail workers even know? And are their governments, academic institutions, and industrialists even doing anything to prepare them for the consequences?

So sad, that invisible hand. I might see if the game industry hires a lot of economists, that would be a fascinating career.

BTW, MCV appears to be the industry's main magazine...in the UK. Anyone know if such an animal exists focusing on other game markets, or is MCV the be-all and end-all?

[Lord J Esq]

I don't know if you could call me a professional video game designer, since I only made a living from it for one year and the boss was a friend, but I've been an amateur video game designer for over a decade and I have plenty to say about the subject. For years I'd spent energy on things like advancing the non-combat-driven RPG, reconciling nonlinearity with plot, taking the numbers games and the coin-tosses out of character advancement (also in RPGs), and defining such common but surprisingly ambiguous terms as "RPG," "character development," "roleplaying," and so forth. During my professional stint I spent energy developing my own virtual world design theories, studying the philosophy in its present, nascent state, contemplating the practical questions of things like virtual ownership and player influence on other players' experiences, etc., etc., etc. In all of it, I'd say my current top focus is how to avoid the supposed inevitability of "player created content," which under its current definition is totally unacceptable as a singular vehicle for the furtherance of video games.

By the way, Mr. Wada is wrong by virtue of being only partially correct. The infrastructure doesn't exist to replace home hardware, and won't for some time. Maybe that's not such an issue in Japan, but in the United States it will apparently be decades before we get high-level penetration of the lines necessary to supply even today's games in real-time streams. Furthermore, what he's essentially proposing is a return to the mainframe-terminal paradigm of computing, which isn't going to happen. We'll never again see complete dominance by the mainframe paradigm or by the personal computer paradigm, because with the Internet it makes sense for some calculations to be undertaken locally, and some at the server. Assuming that games have far from topped out in their hardware requirements (which isn't so wild an assumption when you consider that much of the most time-consuming work in video games these days would be easily automated with sufficiently powerful core applications), we will continue to need local hardware power.

I think he's right, though, that the "video game console" will lose its purity and fade into the more general world of PC computing. If that happens, I would more readily expect to see standalone consoles progress into peripherals, providing extra graphics and computing power to PCs. The game medium itself, I expect will go fully digital, with downloads to almost fully replace discs within twelve years. (I say "twelve" because that makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about more than "ten" would.)

To wrap it all up on a completely different note, this game designer thinks that the industry is missing a very obvious truth, which is that not all games need to be super-juiced in the technology department. We could make a game like Chrono Trigger today with just six people, six months, and some off-the-shelf software--and we'd be free of the technology caps that made designing Chrono Trigger in the first place such a feat of expertise. This can be generalized: There was a lot of game in games of the earlier era. There are still markets for that stuff. I think the problem here is a specific instance of a much more general flaw in our society, which is that we are driven to a life on the bleeding edge when a life just modestly behind that edge could be far more satisfying.

Oh, one more comment on the Wada bit: They only recently stopped making games for the PS2, a piece of hardware which is ancient in technology terms. Rest assured that even if there is never another generation of consoles (a no-chance scenario, but I'm being generous today...) there is still plenty of life left in the current generation. Why, the PS3 only found its stride this year.

[Thought]

I don't know if you could call me a video game designer, since table-top RPGs is where my heart lies, but I've generally found that at the theoretical level, a surprising number of concepts translate between "automatic" and "manual" games. Also, I've worked on a number of video game projects (even have my name in one, as the projects "grand poobah"), from RPG Maker creations to mods, from hacks and original engines. So I guess I'm the epitome of the armchair game designer; I've done enough to almost seem like I know something, unless I'm talking with people who actually do know what it's all about.

Regarding Yoichi Wada, streaming content cannot and will not take a significant portion of the market away from "physical-delivery," as it were, until we create a society in which it is possible to have excellent internet connection no matter where you go. It is quite possible to find locations even in our metropoleis where one doesn't have access to the internet, much less a good enough connection for game-play. With computers becoming more portable, the utter saturation of connectivity is necessary for the off-line content to be utterly done away with.

The music industry seems like it might be a good example, however, of how video games might progress. The physical element of the "purchase" might not be necessary (that is, people can download music instead of buying CDs, cassettes, 8-tracks, or records), but it is still around because people like owning physical things. Additionally, we notice that songs are downloaded, not streamed. This is an issue of ownership again. People don't like to rent, usually (unless it is so expensive to buy that they can only rent). Streaming games, then, has to work against two issues: the consumer’s desire for a physical product and the consumer’s desire for ownership. These are things that can be overcome, to an extent, but we have a long way to go before streaming gains a majority of the market.

To note, game-playing hardware seems to be here to stay, at least for quite a while more. The interface that the PS3, Wii, and other consoles provide is not duplicated well on computers. Sure, I can play Super Metroid on my computer, if I downloaded the right programs, but the use of a controller separate from the keyboard and mouse make it a more satisfying experience. There are, of course, console-like controllers for the computer, but again, these don't seem to have a sufficient saturation to replace the console experience.

Then there is multiplayer. Maybe I just don't hang around in the right circles, but it seems like pure computer games cannot match the experience of a bunch of friends gathering around the TV and a console and playing a game like Smash Brothers, Marvel Ultimate Alliance, or even single player games like Zelda. The console is moving towards a communal activity; computers can't yet compete with that.

[Radical_Dreamer]

I know that you can call me a professional video game designer, because I've shipped several commercial video games in a design role, and continue to work on such projects. Announcements of the death of consoles (or the death of the PC as a gaming platform) are, in general, vastly overstated. What gets simplified out of the equation is that both types of platform (as well as portable, don't forget portable!) have specific strengths and weaknesses. I grant that some of these may be overcome over time, but not all of them. Each type of platform has certain distinct advantages that the others will not be able to replicate, at least not in any foreseeable time frame. What this is also means is, no, your preferred gaming platform is not the best gaming platform; it's simply the one whose distinct properties and library best match your gaming habits and tastes.

[FaustWolf]

Thanks guys, I really enjoyed reading your experiences! I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is impressed by your exploits in this arena.

J, it would be great to get a conversation going sometime on the role of violence in RPGs and videogames in general. I think conflict has its proper place (indeed, I'd rather see it take place as a vestigial virtual legacy than in the real world), but I'm nevertheless alarmed by some games that have entered the market recently. In a world where some form of violence seems to be the most accepted gameplay mechanic, it'd be great to see other possibilities arise, and for those possibilities to be marketable and enjoyable alternatives. I have to admit that I enjoy games featuring some sort of conflict far more than puzzle games, so the marketability aspect seems like a huge challenge, though it's possible my tastes aren't representative of mainstream consumers.


On the subject of recapturing ye good olde days of game design, I've taken extreme interest in the case of Studio Archcraft. Back in, I think it was June, they released Black Sigil: Blade of the Exiled, in which they hoped to invoke a sense of nostalgia from gamers of our generation. The media completely panned it for the most part as copying too much from Chrono Trigger stylistically while failing to preserve some of the gameplay elements that made Trigger such a great experience. It looks like Archcraft isn't giving up, but it's too bad to see this reaction because it might make other developers think twice about the general idea of going back to the basics.

Black Sigil does have some problems gameplay-wise (namely a ridiculously insane random encounter rate), and the story hadn't been to my personal liking as far as I'd played it, but I think it's still a solid effort and that Archcraft fell victim to factors separate from game design. Namely:

*Inadequate beta testing. A few legitimate bugs did make it into the final game, most notably a missing tech for one of the characters and a non-functioning bestiary feature from what I understand. Also, the script still feels just a little rough in some places, but maybe I'm just being picky. It's possible Archcraft had to rush to meet deadlines, but I keep thinking back to what a tight ship Agent 12 ran during post-production of CE despite the CE team's own self-imposed schedule. It was really impressive, and leads me to believe there were probably avoidable flaws in whatever system Archcraft had adopted for this phase of production.

*Piracy and backfiring DRM. The game seizes up at inopportune moments when it's downloaded and played on an emulator according to numerous reports; but on the other hand the same media that panned the game on numerous other fronts reported no such problems. What I think happened is that the freezing up is a form of digital rights management, similar to how CT:DS wouldn't progress beyond the Millennial Fair gate. But the nature of the DRM made the game appear shoddily built and rumors of hangups might have steered consumers away from purchasing legitimate copies of the game. I.e., people confused the DRM for what happens in legit copies of the game. Only my theory, since I haven't seen any official statements on the game crashing problems many were reporting.

*Late release due to publisher cash flow problems. Graffiti Entertainment, the publisher in charge of bringing Archcraft's product to market, literally did not possess the necessary cash to get the game manufactured and distributor orders filled when it was finished in December 2008. It probably didn't make much of a difference since a January/February 2009 release and a June 2009 release would have happened under similar economic conditions, but the delays did lead consumers to believe extra beta testing could have been completed in the meantime. In reality that wouldn't have been possible from what I understand, since the game had been conveyed to the publisher and the producer's job was complete at that point -- but it made the bugs present in the final version that much more unforgivable for many consumers, or at least that's my impression.

*Weak rewards from viral advertising. Actually, I wouldn't have known about the game at all had it not been for Youtube, but viral advertising for Black Sigil began years before the game's release. It was probably forgotten by many of its potential consumers judging from what I've seen of the view counts for the online release ads. Both Archcraft and Graffiti being relatively new firms, neither had the kind of penetration into the consumer base that might be necessary for successful viral advertising. I think the twenty-million-hit Youtube videos you hear about in mainstream news, where people flock to see a cute baby or pet, promote a false impression of the average success of a viral campaign. But that's only my theory for now; I'm really interested in further studying the economic results of viral adverts.

I think Archcraft could have done more to communicate with fan communities built around SNES-era games, but the producer/publisher relationship may have hamstrung them in that regard in some way.


The point of all the above being, these could be considered barriers to market entry for brand new developers. Piracy seems the most damning problem to me, but I still need to research whether digital piracy is better or worse for the producer in the long run. Piracy is the ultimate try-before-you-buy, but it depends on how often people do that all important "buy" part, and whether product quality actually influences the purchase rate. But it's been a fascinating study for those who've been keeping an eye on Archcraft, and their blog has been pretty insightful too.

[Lord J Esq]

On the heels of the news out of the Supreme Court today that it'll hear its first video game case--involving a law in California banning the sale or rental to children of certain violent games--and not entirely irrelevant to Faust's previous post, I had an interesting thought, which is this:

If we want to claim that virtual worlds are credible social communities, and will continue to become more so...
If we want to claim that virtual worlds may not be physically real but carry with them the full weight of human interaction...
If we want to claim that virtual worlds are extensions of the real world...

Then, I can see a certain logic in the premise of outlawing some of the same misbehavior inside virtual worlds if it is already criminal in the physical world. (This is not what the Supreme Court case is about, as that deals with banning access to the virtual world rather than the content inside the virtual world. Nevertheless, I will continue.) If we want legitimacy for virtual worlds, we're going to have to address the fact that legitimacy entails constraints on what virtual world content is allowable, just as such constraints exist in the physical world. That is an inescapable consequence of "legitimacy." And if you followed the recent brouhaha where Roger Ebert said that video games are not art, and the video game community went up in arms, you can appreciate that gamers want games to be taken more seriously than our society presently takes them. Well, let's explore that.

In a recent popular video game, the player is empowered to use their playable character to pick up an image of what is effectively a human being, who is blocking their way forward, and throw her into into the gears of active machinery, causing her to scream in the throes of death and subsequently stain the gears red with her blood and entrails. Such a reprehensible, inexcusable action would be murder in the real world. (Not to mention obscenely sexist.)

I am reminded that a virtual world is not the real world. No sentient entity was actually murdered. The victim was just an image. Indeed, this is the justification for permitting such content to exist in a virtual world. But if the experience I have described is more than just a fantasy...if it is in fact some kind of legitimate albeit nonphysical society, then what the player has done in choosing that course of action is to condone the idea of murder strongly enough to have committed it "in principle." And let us remember that the images of the action are very vivid, and inspire a visceral reaction.

Murder provides us with just the thing I am trying to describe. Murder is not "killing." It exists on top of killing as, more or less, "egregiously wrong" killing. What would entail "egregiously wrong" is a matter of opinion, not a physical fact. There is no physical component to murder; the application of the label is a value judgment. As such, murder is distinctive from the killing which it describes. In that way murder is separable from killing. If a player kills the image of a person in the way I mentioned above, then no killing has occurred in the physical world and thus the physical world charge of murder does not apply. But, in the virtual world, murder has occurred even if there has not been a sentient entity who died, because murder is a judgment of an act and is distinct from the act itself. At the very least, the playable character is guilty of murder.

However, the playable character is under the direct control of the player. Does that mean the player has committed murder?

The dilemma is this: We've all killed video game characters before. What's changing now is that these killings are becoming more realistic in images and sounds, and, more importantly, we're trying to create societies in virtual space. If a virtual world is more than an entertainment diversion, if we are extending human Civilization into virtual spaces, then it isn't a given any longer that all real-world value judgments are inoperative in virtual worlds. I don't feel that I've ever murdered a video game character, but I felt close to it when I played Grand Theft Auto, and I didn't like that feeling. Today the "game" aspect of virtual worlds competes more strongly than ever that video games in particular and virtual worlds in general are not an ethical vacuum like the human imagination is, but an actual social sphere. It takes two to murder: the victim and the perpetrator. If the victim is a figment of computer code but the society in which the murder occurs is a legitimate one, then something more than a fictional killing has occurred here: We have created a society where the principle of murder is acceptable.

I don't think we can have it both ways. I don't think we can claim "Video games and virtual worlds need to be treated with more respect as credible extensions of human society," yet then turn around and claim "Any behavior in a virtual world is acceptable because the action is all electronic and there are no direct real-world ramifications," without committing a hypocrisy. Are these virtual spaces mere occasions for art and entertainment, and devoid of inherent social value, or are they genuine societies where the laws of nature happen to be variable?

My personal opinion is that the specific act of murder I described probably should not be allowable player character behavior. This is an interesting position for me because I'm one of the most fervent anti-censorship advocates you'll find. But because as a gamer and a game designer I have such respect for virtual worlds, and their power and gravity, I find myself unable to justify that specific action. I certainly wouldn't move to ban all acts of murder in virtual worlds, but I can formulate no defense for that particular act. It is not art; it is not creativity; it is not free speech; it is not mere entertainment. It is exactly what it purports to be: the deliberate act of murder for its own sake, and the inevitable shock which follows...or at least which I hope should follow.

I'm fine with killing itself in virtual worlds (including video games). In my work as a writer I've written characters who killed all kinds of other characters. In my experiences as a gamer, I've played characters who killed other characters. I can vouch for not having suffered any ethical degradation because of it. If anything, I have come to better understand life and existence by my experiences with video games. Now, however, our video games are converging with society itself. They play more vividly to our senses. They ask to be treated as more than idle diversions. They want to be as real an experience as electronics can permit. I think that murder in this context is pushing the limit of what is defensible behavior. Something is going to have to give: Either the graphic depiction of deplorable behavior is going to face censorship, or we as a society are going to have to reevaluate what actually constitutes deplorable behavior. As it is now, we're living in a contradiction.

What do you think?

[FaustWolf]

What game is it that allows the player to toss someone into a set of gears? I was alarmed enough by the murder of civilians in the GTA series, and now this.

I find that my opinion on videogame violence is informed not necessarily by realism, but by the balance of power a game portrays between player character(s) and any targets upon which the player is encouraged to exert violence. Not "power" in the sense that "ZOMG, my Level 60 Squall just whaled on that poor Level 2 Blob," but "power" in the sense that the player realizes his or her character is being subjected to some kind of existential threat during a violent encounter, period. And moreover, that his or her character hasn't attained a sudden coat of invincibility by virtue of picking up a weapon.

In the videogames I've played over the years, I've invariably come away with the impression that aggression can only be a destabilizing factor with regard to one's own safety, rather than an empowering thing.  The vast majority of my virtual alter egoes have spent their time dodging bullets, stomping on homicidal turtles, and quite often perishing. Games taught me that violence should be used with utmost care because supreme risk is attached to it; unless it's used in self defense or in defense of another, it probably ought not be used at all. Hypothetically I would welcome a gory ultra-realistic game depicting World War I trench battles inasmuch as it would be a statement on the fundamental futility of violence. If the lesson can be learned adequately in virtual reality, I would rather have it learned there than on real streets and battlefields.

With the above in mind, I can't help but find the "new violence" depicted in GTA and certain other games -- often conducted with impunity against unarmed civilians, and sometimes rewarded within the context of the games from what I understand -- anything other than disturbing, for lack of the "live by the sword, die by the sword" subtext that contributed to my own pacifist development. If J would be so kind as to loan me the "killing vs. murder" terminology, I would posit that "virtual killing" occurs when the subtext is present, and "virtual murder" occurs when the subtext is absent. I mean only to borrow the neutral connotation J gives to "killing" and the morally weighty connotation he assigns to the word "murder."

Maybe it's just the alien-ness of the "new game violence" that gets my goat, and it's true that I haven't found any convincing evidence to support the claim that this sort of thing somehow warps people. I suspect it's possible that "the new violence" caters to pre-existing attitudes and serves as reservoirs for those attitudes, but reservoirs are not necessarily a bad thing if they capture and seal up negative tendencies that otherwise would have been focused on flesh-and-blood people. After all, the "reservoir" effect is closely tied to my own defense of the forms of game violence I consumed while growing up; "better to experience aggression and its ill effects in virtual reality rather than real-reality," as it were.

Perhaps it all really does go back to how one is raised? At the same time I was doing everything from stomping on homicidal turtles in Super Mario Bros. to kicking ass (and having my ass handed to me in turn) in Street Fighter II, I was also listening to my parents reminisce on their vehement opposition to the Vietnam War back in the day. It's possible my interpretation of traditional videogame violence has been colored through that lens from the beginning.

[FaustWolf]

If Genesis doesn't mind...

I find it completely unfair to compare any movie game to a movie because films are relying on an art form (drama) that has thousands of years of experience to its name You put sympathetic humans on screen (or stage, or TV, etc.) and tell a well-paced, exciting story and we escape into their adventure. However, the director controls how the story unfolds, controls what you see and, if s/he knows what s/he's doing, delivers it to an audience based on a centuries-old formula designed to engage the emotions.

Games try to trump that with interactivity, letting you control the outcome. But the more control the gamer has, the more the pacing is ruined by brainless repetition (leaving the task to the gamer presents the possibility the gamer will fail 30 times in a row).

If they make the game tasks easier (as not to bring the story to a screeching halt), the gaming experience becomes much too short to justify the $60 price tag, and the more interactivity is taken away in favor of pacing and pre-rendered cinemas, the more they stop being video games.

Again, it's okay for a film to be scripted because you're in the hands of the director and charismatic actors who make you care about their situation, but other than the thrill of seeing what latest visual effects a shiny new console can show off, what's the reward for playing a scripted game?

What a great next step in our discussion here!

I feel there is great dramatic potential for scripted games. Few people want to sit in a theater for 20 hours while an epic drama unfolds over that amount of time, but the periodic saving and interactivity of a game can stretch out the consumer's attention span long enough to deliver some great stuff in terms of old-fashioned storytelling. Due to the "attention span lengthening effect," I suspect games rival both the novel and the miniseries in terms of maximum dramatic potential.

I have to question whether the dramatic potential of games is being properly explored on a large scale yet, but I remember the story of Metal Gear Solid being especially well delivered for its era. Xenogears approached the very limits of what a silent RPG can accomplish. Xenosaga was doing the same for the Talkie RPG until Tetsuya Takahashi and Soraya Saga were removed from the project and it jumped the shark once deprived of the gravity these excellent writers had lent Episode I.

Reflecting on the points Genesis made above, I think I've finally identified why I so abhor MMORPGs -- I fear that they might kill the console RPG through sheer crowding out, while the MMORPG itself is a much less suitable platform for quality storytelling (IMHO -- I've never played one, so it could be a groundless supposition on my part). But on the other hand, a game need not be an RPG to deliver an awesome story.

[GenesisOne]

Well, Faust, I too have a reason for abhorring MMORPGs.  I bet you'll probably agree with the main reasons I have found.

I feel there is great dramatic potential for scripted games. Few people want to sit in a theater for 20 hours while an epic drama unfolds over that amount of time, but the periodic saving and interactivity of a game can stretch out the consumer's attention span long enough to deliver some great stuff in terms of old-fashioned storytelling. Due to the "attention span lengthening effect," I suspect games rival both the novel and the miniseries in terms of maximum dramatic potential.

But each event in any game that you pick up and play is still carefully scripted. For the FPS: Run up to the busted-out brick wall. Truck pulls up. Six enemy troops spill out. Shoot them. Run down the hallway... get killed. Start over. Run up to the busted-out brick wall again. Again wait for the truck to pull out. Kill the six enemy troops. Run down the hallway. Pick up the First Aid Kit...

Rinse. Repeat. Memorize.

The experience of being able to stride down a hallway blowing up monsters with a rail gun was new to a lot of us. The first time you play a level, the monster around the first corner is a surprise. After that, it becomes homework. It's memorizing, via pure repetition, bad guy placement and ammunition deposits and card keys. "Okay, kill the mutant behind the crate. Duck behind the dual doors. Wait for guard to walk out. Kill him, take his key. There's two more of them in this next hall. Pick up the rockets..." 

With movies and TV shows, you have no control over what will happen next.  That's the draw and hook that comes from these mediums, the same hook which is impossible by definition in video games.

[FaustWolf]

Square Enix writer told that "games don't need stories."

 

EDIT: Jeez, though, so Miwa Shoda was responsible for this!? I thought it was Matsuno, but maybe he was in charge of the "macrowriting" while she did the "microwriting," or their responsibilities were shared in another way. Plus, the translation team and voice actors just did a superb job -- I wonder how accurate the translation was?

I never played Final Fantas XII because I could never get past the battle system, but judging from the cutscenes I've seen, the writing was utterly top-notch. I bought it and left it wrapped just to support that kind of writing. Ugh, and Square Enix would just as soon toss such talent aside...

What a sad state of affairs. If what this article suggests about the future of the RPG is true, then some underdogs are just gonna have to enter this industry and kick some ass one day.

[tushantin]

Square Enix writer told that "games don't need stories."

 

I have but one thing to say.

WHUT DA FACK?!

[FaustWolf]

Whooooooaaa~! Miwa Shoda's wiki article says she did some scenario writing for Radical Dreamers too. I can't find any more info, but if Kato did the writing for the main scenario, then Shoda must have done writing for one or more alternate scenarios. Did the Compendium ever find out how the scenarios were divvied up, writer-wise?

In the end, everything comes back to Chrono. The world revolves around it!

EDIT: Looks like the Compendium doesn't yet have Shoda listed in the Radical Dreamers credits. Is she even credited in the Japanese credits for the game? I wonder if we can cross-reference the wiki information with another source. Her blog, maybe? It's the only primary source the wiki article gives.

[Vehek]

Ah, it's a different reading of the name!
The "Miwa Ikuta" on our credits is Miwa Shoda.
(The original name in the Japanese RD credits is 生田　美和, which matches Miwa Shoda's name in Japanese.)

[utunnels]

Well, it is M. Ikuta in credits list, I just double checked it.
I was in a rush so I just left a link to the Japanese wiki before I confirm it in the English wiki.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPEvAP_oe4k

[FaustWolf]

Great work guys, I didn't even see "Miwa" in the Compendium's credits until now. Hmm, so she wrote "The Shadow Realm and the Goddess of Death," and "Magil: Caught Between Love and Adventure." Very cool!