Battlefield Heroes

Probably a lesser known instalment in the Battlefield series, Battlefield Hereos is an multiplayer online third person shooter.  Unlike the other games, Heroes takes a more cartoonish style look which turns out to be less violent and keep the rating at Teen.  However, much like the other titles, this game features the typical capture the flag, king of the hill, and control point gameplay objectives.  Being a Free to Play game, the developers' main source of income ultimately comes from the customization options that you can purchase more of with real money.

Since it's release in 2009, Heroes has certainly changed its selling point on the game.  Its first purpose was to point out that the game is easily free to play and a novice player won't get "shot in the face repeatedly by a swearing, ultra-skilled 15 year old boy who plays the game every day for 8 hours." (trailer) I personally played the game for about two years when it was released I've witnessed much of its development.  I've noticed that after the major bugs were fixed with the core mechanics, the developers had nothing left to add.  Nothing, that is, except customization content.

Just like every other free to play game, I'm afaid that Battlefield Heroes has fallen into the same groove of this money-driven shmoozefest.  Free to play games have turned customization into a cheap tool to make money.  How ironic.

I enjoy customization.  It gives the player control over the personality of thier character.  It creates a bond between them that not very much else can.  It allows you to change the color of thier mustache.  Customiztion is a powerful gameplay element that should not be taken lightly.  If free to play games keep using customization to try to bring every 12 year old to thier website, then I'm afraid that its dignity will be lost.  To customize is to insert a part of the player into the game.

After analyzing some games, I have found that I get a little upset with how some games have tried to use mechanics.  This one in particular was rather disappointing.  Battlefield Heroes used to be a really great game to just relax and shoot people in.  Now the shoot-you-in-the-face-repeatedly 15 year olds have come and EA is too concerned with fitting the model of some rabbit ears onto the player models.  I believe that some people are missing the target and customization hasn't been hit by F2Ps for quite some time.  This field has some work to do before things get too bad...

LEGO Star Wars

Over the break, my brother and I whipped up a bit of nostalgia when we decided to play this game for the first time in years.  Since LEGO Star Wars came out, I have played several other LEGO games.  I can tell you right now that they are all the same.  It would seem that LEGO thinks that they can fall into the same groove that Call of Duty and Mario have in the past: using the same basic structure but changing minor elements.  The LEGO games are just another series who copy the mechanics of its previous titles.  LEGO Star Wars happens to be the very first of these games.

I'm not interested in talking about copy-cats though.  I want to talk about what I think the most important mechanic in this game is: the studs.  If you've played a LEGO game before, then you know that the studs are the form of currency.  You would also know that in every level of the game there is a plethora of studs to collect and it would be nearly impossible to collect them all.  To get studs, the player must break LEGO objects which usually explode fantastically into a shower of smaller bricks and studs.  There are many objects to break and you can break them with just about any character.

The entire process appears to be very juicy to me.  Not only is it satisfying to break make the objects explode with the simply press of a B button, but picking up all of the little shiney coins from the aftermath also stikes a note in my brain that stimulates a ceratain pleasure.  It feels good.  I also noticed something else about this process.  When I first picked up the game, I had no idea what the studs were for.  However, I knew that they must have some purpose because I was collecting a lot of them and the total was becoming very large.  Surely these little studs meant something later on in the game.

And they did.  You can use the studs to buy characters and collectables that you can use when you replay the levels in the game.  The point is that I could have guessed what these collectables would be used for before I was even told.  This reigns true for collectibles in every game that implements them properly.  Who would want to play Mario casually and not collect the coins?  The collectables make a bigger number appear on the screen and we all know that bigger is better.

I don't know the exact reason behind the pleasure of collecting collectables but I do know that it is pleasurable.  The earliest of games include this mechanic and it still reigns today.  Should all games have it?  Probably not.  It's only really applicable with games that require currency.  However, I think I should put out a warning.

Collectables should NOT be used as a last resort for adding extra entertainment value to your game to make it better.  It shouldn't be something to fall on when you realize the core game mechanics aren't going to cut it.  Collectables should be another incentive, but it should also serve a core purpose.  Most of the time it's going to be currency but that doesn't always have to be the case.  Just give it some sort of meaning.

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons

Now this is a game that you might not have heard of.

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons is a single player cinematic driven game on the Xbox Live Arcade, Steam, and the Playstation Network.  Throughout the game, the player follows the story of a younger and older brother who must work together to find a cure for their dying father.  Haunted by the premature death of their mother, they must overcome the obstacles of fantasy world if their journey is to succeed.

I think the coolest part of this game are the mechanics.  The player controls each brother with their corresponding joystick on the controller.  It makes the gameplay rather interesting when you have to control two free moving characters at the same time.  It becomes even more interesting when there are two different tasks that you have to accomplish at the same time.  This actually turns out to be a very fun game.

The amount of thinking involved in controlling two characters is phenomenal.  I've found myself stop for a moment just to figure out what I have to press so I don't mess up.  This game isn't really hard, but it is set up in a way that could make it insanely difficult.  It incorporates puzzle elements as well as a certain skill element all into a cinematic friendly game.

I've been thinking about the gameplay elements in this game and I think that there is a hidden meaning behind why they made them.  The story is about two brothers on their journey to save their father.  To overcome obstacles, there is a not-so-hidden theme of teamwork that is crucial to progress.  I personally think that the gameplay mechanics are a direct hint at this theme.  In fact, I find this to be a rather ironic mechanic as well. 

This is a single player game where the player controls two characters.  What's funny is that you have to make the two characters work together, which is harder than it may seem.  I think that the developers were trying to show the player that it is harder to do work that two people were meant to do as one person.  In other words, it's hard to do a job that requires teamwork as one person.  Having all of the power doesn't mean you are able to control it.

I'm sure that there is some kind of psychological study out there about the number of tasks that the brain can handle at once, but here it is obvious that two tasks may be pushing it.  I would argue that most games require one player to do two tasks at once.  However, these tasks are not as poignant as the ones in Brothers. 

I think this game is really cool.  Whether it's the fact that it makes me think in ways that I haven't before or that it looks absolutely beautiful, I think that Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons should have more of an audience than it currently does.

Super Mario Sunshine

Yeah, yeah I know.  I've been playing a lot of Mario games lately...

Much like the topic of my previous post, Super Mario Sunshine features yet another iconic Nintendo character with a new tool to aid in his journey to retrieve all of the shines.  Quite uniquely, the new tool is a water-spraying device known as F.L.U.D.D. whom has a personality of its own.  Mario must jump, dive, and now spray his way to the finish where Bowser awaits him once again.

Mario's new tool helps him to clean the tropical island of Delfino which has been covered in a toxic paint-like substance.  However, the only reason that Mario has to do this is because he has been framed by Baby Bowser for contaminating the island in the first place.  By imitating Mario, Baby Bowser was able to get our favorite red-capped man put in jail upon his arrival.  Without any means of arguing with the local judicial system, Mario is sentenced to cleaning the island himself.

I find it interesting that Nintendo would pick a story like this.  It's almost like they are giving kids a taste of what the real world can be like.  Mario's and Peach's attempts to argue with the judge at their trial were hopeless because everyone on the island was convinced that since he looked like the perpetrator, he simply had to be.  It was a hopeless cause to argue.

This conflict is apparent in a lot of movies where the hero is wrongfully accused for doing something that they didn't do.  This story is usually found in PG-13 type films where there is a big court case and the trial is about some sort of terrible crime.  So, I find this to be a rather advanced type of story line; one that is not commonly found among child-friendly Nintendo games.  In fact, this was probably one of the first Mario games to have a story more involved than just having to save the princess.

I don't find this to be a good thing or a bad thing.  I do think that this was a good move on Nintendo's part to introduce a more meaty story to a younger audience.  It makes the player feel for Mario in a way that they haven't before.  If even for a moment, I actually felt wrongfully accused for something that I never did.  This creates a bond between player and character that most games lack.  Having to try and prove yourself when no one believes you is a hard spot to be in and no one likes that feeling.

I think that games with stories should shoot for meaty topics like this.  Placing a player in a very restrictive situation allows for a very controlled game and gives the player something to fight for.  Sure, saving the princess will always give someone some sort of driving force, but I think that there are better options oout there today.

Luigi's Mansion

Well, this certainly isn't the most gut-wrenching of horror games, but it certainly holds its own in the gaming community.  Much like the Super Mario or perhaps Sonic the Hedgehog games, Luigi's Mansion is another childhood classic of those who grew up with Nintendo in their lives.

Unlike previous endeavors by Nintendo, Luigi's Mansion features Luigi in his first starring role.  It also showcased a rather different gameplay mechanics from any other Mario game at the time.  The idea of the game is to capture the ghost's around and throughout a mansion as Luigi to save his brother Mario.  To capture a ghost, first the player must shine their flashlight over the ghost until their heart is visible.  Then the player sweeps the ghosts up into a vacuum sweeper by holding the R trigger and holding the control stick in the opposite direction of where the ghost is in relation to Luigi.  It sounds complicated but it's rather simple.

More importantly, these controls feel very natural.  It's as if you feel the ghost fighting against you as every time you jerk the control stick in the opposite direction, the ghost immediately changes its escape direction.  It also gives people a rather pleasant feeling of accomplishment when they finally manage to capture a ghost.  This is really important for this game because the entire game is about capturing ghosts in the same manner.

Using a simple and juicy mechanic like this throughout the game can certainly make it very good.  However, too much of a good thing is never good.  Luigi's Mansion (in my opinion) dances on the edge of overusing the ghost capturing mechanic.  For every ghost in the game, there is a simple technique for capturing them.  Towards the end of the game, it may take more time or more skill to capture a particular ghost, but the concept is the same.  After a while, this becomes obviously repetitive.  Leaving this as the only battle mechanic could make for an engaging game, but it will most likely become boring and bland after too long.

Making a game that focuses on only one juicy mechanic is walking on thin ice.  There is a possibility that it will work, but the odds are against you.  Personally, I thought that Luigi's Mansion grew to be cumbersome in this manner towards the end of the game.  It was a fun game and I would definitely play it again, but not for eight straight hours (like at a certain gaming event).  The interest is lost after doing the same thing at walking pace across the halls of an entire mansion.  It becomes droning.  I think that this should be a careful thing to consider when making a juicy game.

Super Mario Galaxy

I find it interesting that Mario's well-known platforming mechanics still make for a great game today.  In just about every game where Mario is the main feature, there is some kind of platforming element that gives it a traditional gaming feel.  Obviously Super Mario Galaxy is no different.

What intrigues me most about this game though is that the 3D platforming element gets turned on its head.  Galaxy features platforming from planet to planet, changing the orientation of the gravity with each switch.  As Mario maneuvers around on the planet, he always remains tangential to its surface.  The engine is rather unique in that it accounts for many different situations that the player can get into so it is rather solid.

The basic idea of this game is the same as any older versions of 3D Mario games (such as Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine) in that the player must collect the stars to eventually beat Bowser and save the princess.  The stars are strewn across many unique worlds or levels that all feature different obstacles that Mario must jump, duck, and slide through to accomplish his task.

Though this may be the same pattern that Nintendo has used for years, they also have a habit of adding or tweaking a new gameplay mechanic into the core of the game to make players think differently about how they can get the stars.  In SM64, Mario does not start off with any special powers, but in Sunshine, the designers gave him F.L.U.D.D., which was a never-before-seen mechanic in any game.  Instead of giving Mario another tool, the developers of Galaxy decided to change the world, or in this case worlds.  

As I said before, changing the gravity makes the game more visually appealing, yet it takes away a small amount of control.  The way that Mario moves around on the planet looks cool but it messes with your head way too much.  Perhaps this is due to how the camera moves in a cinematic structure.  This makes the movement unnecessarily inconvenient.  In particular, depth perception is very difficult to determine.  As I've said before, this game looks amazing but the core mechanics seem a bit flawed.

I think that this just goes to show that making a game look good will mean nothing if the game does not function correctly.  Don't get me wrong though.  Galaxy is a fantastic game and a mere inconvenience of depth perception shouldn't stop anyone from playing this great game.  In fact, all of the Mario 3D platformers seem to have a slight problem with distinguishing the distances between objects because of the camera.  Fixing the camera may solve most if not all of the problems with this game, which isn't many.  Making a game with broken mechanics isn't going to make it a very good game, even if it is pretty.  Broken mechanics mean that the game has no possible chance at being perfect.  I think that any prospective designers should keep this in mind when designing they're next game.

Super Smash Bros. Melee

Maybe it's not the first of the series, but Super Smash Brothers Melee (SSBM) is one of the most balanced fighting games out there.  In fact, it is so much so that this game was part of the Pro Circuit in the Major League Gaming competition for numerous years.  Yes, SSBM was originally designed as a party game for kids 13 and older.  That didn't stop thousands of people of all ages and countries from competing for grand prizes at tournaments which eventually ranged to rewards of ten thousand dollars.

What was different about the Super Smash Bros. games was that mechanics were vastly different from any other fighting games at the time.  The camera zooms in and out to keep everyone on the screen as much as possible.  There were many iconic Nintendo characters that many people could relate too.  Not to mention that it also brought the spotlight to some more unrecognized characters from the company's previous endeavors.  Stages and items reflected much of Nintendo's property as well.

The most notable difference between this series and other fighting games would probably be the core mechanics.  If you didn't know, during a match in SSBM, the characters don't lose health when they are struck in any way.  In fact, they are indestructible.  The only way that the players can win is by knocking their opponent off of the edge of the screen.  When a character is struck, they gain a certain amount of damage.  The more damage you have, the farther you fly when you get hit.

This physics-based gameplay turns out to be extremely enjoyable.  Knocking your opponent off the stage with over 100% damage means they will go flying super fast.  It feels great to have that much power.  The controls are simple and easy to pick up, yet extremely hard to master; which makes me wonder how that can be.

Melee in particular represents the perfect balance of all of these elements.  The characters move on the screen at a considerable pace and it allows the players to break down the game into an art.  The physics of gravity and forces implement an almost random aspect to the challenge.  There was a combination of key elements to make it balanced enough that players with extreme were the only ones that could win.  If someone wasn't as good at the game than their opponent, then they were bound to lose.

On the other hand, Brawl (SSBB), the offspring of Melee, took this out of the equation.  Anyone can win a match of SSBB.  This game rewards the player for being defensive and pulling cheap moves everywhere.  It simply isn't as balanced as Melee is or was.  Yet, for casual gamers, this is probably the best Smash game to date.  It harnesses every element that a party game should and still makes the player feel rewarded for the things that they do.  It's a rather juicy game.

To pick a game that's better than the other would be pointless.  If you want to seriously pit to players against each other to see who has the most skill, Melee would be the way to go.  If you want a friendly (or not so friendly) match against your friend just to kill some time, then Brawl is perfect.  I just find it so interesting that two extremely similar games can separate it's own community.  SSBM was the best version before SSBB came out so its community consisted of everyone that loved the game.

Situations like this have occurred before and it's not really preventable.  It's sort of odd that such great games could actually tear apart the very community that they were made for.  This just goes to show that the very mechanics of a game, no matter how invisible, play a large part in the success of the game.  Certain mechanics will intrigue some players and turn others away.  Perhaps making a game directed towards a specified audience isn't the way to go.  If a series starts pinpointing one group, then diversity is lost and the games just don't apply to everyone.  I think a broader audience is the way to go when it comes to designing video games.
Something to think about....