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....

Beyond: Two Souls

I have to be honest.  I hadn't even heard of this game until the day it came out.  However, I'm almost glad I didn't hear of it because it never would have surprised me as much as it did.

Beyond: Two Souls is an absolutely stellar interactive drama action-adventure game about a girl named Jodie who has had the special power to communicate with an intradimensional being, Aiden, since the very day she was born.  This game takes you through just about every major scene in Jodie's life.  And these events aren't simply her first ballet dance either.  Being sent to a laboratory by her own parents for experimentation when she was eight, avoiding armies of other dimension beings, fending off ancient Indian gods, getting shot multiple time whilst neutralizing a terroristic threat, and avoiding your own suicide multiple times are just a few of the events that this girl has to go through.

Throughout the entire game, the player (whether they like it or not) builds a certain bond with the protagonist and her ghostly companion.  The story and gameplay certainly play a part in immersing the player, but what I think really drives it home are the visuals.

This entire game is one big movie.  The scenes flow so well that it's difficult to tell when there is a cutscene and when there is gameplay; which I think is amazing!  Not very many games possess that sort of power.  And they didn't use any ol' low resolution models and basic facial expressions either.  This entire game was made with advanced motion capture technology capable of recording the tiniest of muscle movements.  Add in some modern shaders and effects and you have your own piece of Hollywood in the palms of your hands.

Okay, so it's a movie and it's a game.  What's the big deal?

Well, I think that this game is a perfect example of bringing two worlds together.  Gaming will always be a genre where the game challenges the players to complete certain tasks or interact in some way.  Movies are solely designed for entertainment and require no effort from the audience whatsoever.  Over the years, filmmakers have developed techniques for better movies just as games have done the same.  But what happens when you combine both of those skill-sets?  What would happen if you were to make a game so much like a movie that it retained the properties of one?  In short, you would get a game like Beyond: Two Souls.

So what makes a game a movie?  Aside from the cinematic camera angles and lifelike models, this game has a distinct lack of user interface.  Like a couple other PS3 exclusives, this game uses a very subtle UI that is only brought on screen when it is absolutely necessary.  The only time when there is major UI is at the beginning of the game when you step throughout the tutorial.  The less user interface there is, the less of a wall there is obstructing the player from actually immersing themselves into the story.  Of course, if a game has too little UI, then it may almost become frustrating to play.  Beyond: Two Souls, however, does a good job at avoiding this.

Some people may disagree, but I find that putting two and two together in this case is a fantastic idea.  A lot of games in the past have been able to sway the emotions of its audience in the direction that it intends.  To utilize a cinematic approach to game is ingenious and powerful.  I really do think that more games should try something like this in the future.

Needless to say, I don't think that Call of Duty should make and interactive drama as their next installment in the series but it may be wise for them to take some notes...

Team Fortress 2

Talk about a class-based multiplayer shooter...

Team Fortress 2, released in 2007 to critical acclaim, is a first person shooter designed heavily around it's cartoonish art style, humor, and right out boisterousness.  Its class-based character selection gives the players extremely contrasting loadouts at any given time.

What I've noticed about TF2 is its insane amount of balance.  To have such contrasting classes and still be able to create level gameplay is quite the feat.  However, I think I may have figured out a pattern.

Of course, any good video game relies on the way it is balance.  Between gameplay, art, sound, controls, etc., the balance of a game can really define its playability.  A well balanced game should not be too difficult or boring for any given player.  This is very similar to my conversation on flow from a couple of posts ago.  What I've noticed from well balanced games is that there is never an element that is over powerful (duh).

So, how do you do this?  How can you prevent one element from being too powerful and throwing off the flow of the game?  You could just take it out completely.  Or you could use what I like to call the "Rock, Paper, Scissors Effect."  The basic idea of the "Rock, Paper, Scissors Effect" is that there is an endless circle of elements overpowering each other.  Perhaps "overpowering" isn't the right word though because there is always a chance for the opposite outcome as well.

Maybe it would be best if I provided an example.  Look at the classes in TF2: Scout, Soldier, Pyro, Demoman, Heavy, Engineer, Sniper, Medic, and Spy.  Each class has their own very unique traits and weapons, which in certain situations will greatly aid the rest of the team.  But, just like in Rock, Paper, Scissors, everyone has their nemesis.  The slow Heavy has to keep an eye out for the elusive, nimble Spy.  The Spy has to be careful that he doesn't run into a Pyro.  The Pyro will be quickly disposed of by the Sniper.  You get the idea.  There are actually many circles of Rock, Paper, Scissors in TF2 and they all seem to make a full loop.  This effect means that no one class can ever be over powerful.

If I ever want to make a quick, fun, competitve game, the "Rock Paper, Scissors Effect" will probably come in handy.  I really think that more games should consider using this as a way to balance gameplay in a multiplayer situation.  That being said, this will only work when the game involves many unique characters fighting at the same time.  One on one may not work out the same way.  However, I still think it's an interesting mechanic that a lot of games have overlooked.

Super Mario 64

Cmon.  I had to blog about this eventually...

Super Mario 64(SM64) certainly has one or two things to talk about.  Not only was it a game that introduced revolutionary mechanics for a newer system, it was also another iconic piece for Nintendo's Mario series.  This game is rather well-known amongst all gamers alike.

The funny thing is that this game is completely broken.  Sure, it has a bit of leeway since it was one of the first N64 games that came out.  However, the amount of collision, geometry, and gameplay problems are hard to overlook.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then perhaps you should take a look at this...
Especially check out 2:02, 3:04, 9:22, and 9:42 as these are the glitches used in speedruns of this game.

Glitches in a game like SM64 can be seen in two ways: an indication of how bad of a job the designers did or simply more interesting easter eggs that the designers put there unintentionally.  Depending on who you are, you may have the mindset that exploiting these game-breaking glitches is cheating or you may think it's the coolest thing ever.  Whoever you are, these glitches are here to stay.

However, for how broken of a game that SM64 is, very few people could have possibly known some if any of the glitches portrayed above if they were just doing a casual play through of the game.  Most people don't think that if you use Mario's long jump backwards that he can gain incredible amounts of speed because the programmers never put a limit on it.  They never would have thought that catching the Bomb-Omb as soon as it explodes would aid you in clipping through thin walls.  Nobody thinks of these things.  And that's just it.  Most developers won't make a game to be extremely broken.  They make them for the entertainment value (and the money).

I played SM64 as a kid and, to be honest, I never really liked it that much.  I guess I never really took the time to learn all of the mechanics and controls necessary to complete certain parts of the game.  However, just recently I started playing it again.  I can't stop.  What got me back into it was the speedrunning communtiy.  Something about exploiting major glitches in games to beat them faster than they were intended intrigued me to no end.  I never could have imagined that you could squeeze so much replay value out of an old game.

And I guess that's the moral of the story.  The glitches in a game are obviously an indication of bad programming, but rarely do we think that we can use them for extra replay value.  That's essentially the concept of emmergence: making a game out of a game.  It's not necessarily bad that glitches are in a game.  There are some glitches that make a game implayable, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying that the games industry should throw caution to the wind and program games with poopy framework, nor am I saying that they should odst every single glitch that they come across throughout the game's life.  In fact, I don't think they should do anything astray from what they're doing already.  It's not the developer's duty to break the game; it's the gamer's.

So the next time you encounter a glitch in your favorite game, don't rage because you may have just gotten the chance to make a game of your own.

Tomb Raider

Throughout gaming history, there have been many topics that have been the center of massive debates.  The more significant topics include violence, sex, and drugs.  Another topic that is highly controversial but not often brought up is a video games' depiction of gender. 

What's the big deal, you ask? 

Video games rely on several key components for it to thrive in the world.  One of these components is the story.  The story will certainly make or break the game under the right circumstances.  Perhaps the most recognizable (and over used) stories is about saving the damsel in distress.  Many a game has used this iconic tale to lure in players so there must be something interesting about it.  Right?  Actually, at this point the story has probably been used so much that people simply accept it as a tradition of sorts.  When we play a game like that, we know that the hero has to go and save the princess from the clutches of the villain.  A princess.  There's almost always a princess to be saved.  Not a prince or a lord, but a princess.

Before many Womens' Rights activist started coming to light, the ladies weren't usually treated on the same level as men were.  They were not thought of as equals.  Today, that has changed.  Any woman can have the same authority as a man can (at least, in America).  Yet, for some reason, video games will still represent them as weaklings or even trophies to the player.  Since the majority of gamers are teenage boys to middle aged men, women are more often than not portrayed in a sexual manner.  Large breasted and hourglass figured, these women are what the game industry thinks that these gamers want.  They're probably right.  However, it's all rather demeaning to females.

Of course, there are still games that exist that give the girls some respect.  There's Samus Aran from the Metroid series, Catherine, and of course Tomb Raider.  The newest product of the Tomb Raider series brought back the iconic mummy-fightin' heroine to fight the odds once more in a grappling adventure.  Lara Croft is a great example for a tough woman in video games.

It's interesting to note that the earlier games in the series show a Lara that was obviously designed to be sexually attractive to the targeted audience whereas this latest installment shows her as an average looking female.  In other words, there was less emphasis on the big boobs.  Why the designers felt this was a good decision, I'm not sure.  I imagine that the growing population of women gamers has influenced the producers to take this into consideration.

This game also boasts a more serious tone throughout the story.  Intead of a girl that starts out by running into a battle guns a-blaze, this Lara was shipwrecked and seperated from the rest of her team.  She is terrified of what could happen to her but musters up the strength from deep within to overcome the obstacles that lie ahead.  This is so much different from what she has been in previous titles. 

I'm not trying to say that all games should exclude any form of defacement of the female gender; nor am I saying that woman is the only gender that is discraced.  Men are often represented as heavish brutes and are almost always the enemy.  There are many games that don't represent women in a demeaning way that have been super successful.  If you're gonna put a woman in you game, don't just resort to the sex appeal right away.  At least give it a little thought...

Bioshock: Infinite - Firearm Backstories

As most people did back in May this year, I played Bioshock: Infinite for the first time these past couple of weeks.  Being a newcomer to the Bioshock series I didn't really know what to expect.  This game is awesome.  I never would have thought that I could like this game so much.  Just about every part of this game attracted me.  Whether it was the colorful art style, the ability to loot every corner of every level, or the phenomenal story, this game always had me coming back for hours upon hours at a time.  Infinite seems to take many of the fine points of a common FPS and enhance them.

However, what I'm concerned about discussing in this post is the loot drops; namely the weapons and ammunition.  It would probably be best if I started out with a situation that I encountered while playing the game.

As I entered yet another battle-ridden building in the floating city of Columbia, I encountered approximately fifteen dead bodies strewn across the floor.  Just like any other normal, everyday person, I proceeded to loot all of the corpses.  I had just been through numerous strenuous battle sequences so not only was I low on health, but low on bullets as well. After a while of searching, I realised that there was no guns lying on the ground and absolutely nothing on any of the bodies.  Why in the world would the developers do this to me?

In my opinion it's really not the developer's fault at all.  In fact, now that I look back at the incident it was a rather ingenious move on their part.

Level design is obviously a key component to making a great game.  If a level doesn't flow properly, neither will the game.  When creating levels for Bioshock: Infinite the developers packed in quite a bit of realism.  To help the player along, the designers will provide various items at key points in the game such as guns, ammunition, and health packs.  To keep the gamer submersed in gameplay, the designers surround these items with a purpose.  If you want to introduce a new gun to the player, then place it next to the body of some poor soul who wouldn't go down without a fight.  If there's a health kit that would be useful for later skirmishes, put it under a bathroom sink.  It's just as important that the environment tells the story as much as the rest of the game does.

Now, in my situation above there was an obvious lack of supplies amongst the corpses.  That's not to say that the designers simply got lazy and didn't finish the level.  Since I walked into the room with no knowledge of how these people died, I also have no idea how they lost their weapons either.  I simply thought that because they were killed by someone else, the killer must have taken the guns and ammunition from them.  And I didn't have to think twice about it.  The game moved on.  What I'm trying to say is that a level will only flow properly if the player can easily come up with a valid reason as to why each object, wall, character, corpse, tree, or wildebeest in a level is where it is.

Another game where I've seen this element hinted at is Half Life 2.  The ammo in this game is presented to the player in a similar sort of manner.  However, it wasn't utilized as well as it should have been.  To provide the player with more ammo, the designers just decided to place a futuristic machine gun on a shelf in a common house.  Sure it's beneficial, but wouldn't that seem just a bit odd?  I suppose that since they do this throughout the game it must seem to blend in to the back of the mind.

Of course, if the story is crap to begin with, you don't leave the player to come up with much of anything.

Really taking the time to think about the placement of items in any given level can mean all the difference in the world for the entirety of the game.  Perhaps something out of place won't cause the title to crash and burn but maintaining this mindset can certainly give any game that much extra flair.  Providing the player with the ability to create the story in their own mind can be very beneficial to any game and it should be implemented to some extent.

Give it some meaning...

Super Ghouls n' Ghosts

This game is relentless.  I could sit down for a good half hour and still not be able to beat the first level.  It's such a challenging game for such simple mechanics.  In fact, I believe I could seriously devote much of my spare time to attempts at beating any of the levels.  Super Ghouls n' Ghosts captures the essence of one of a gamer's greatest weaknesses: the addiction to a challenge.

Two dimensional side-scrolling platformers have been one of the most iconic symbols of the video gaming industry for many years.  Time and time again they have shown their virtual prowess amongst even the most skilled gamers.  It just goes to show that even such a simple idea can push a player to their limit in skill and reaction time.  So how does this sort of concept challenge a player to the point of addiction?  How is it addicting?

One of the most infamous aspects of a typical platformer would probably be the insta-kills.  A great example of this is falling of the edge of the screen.  Everyone knows that when Mario touches the bottom of the screen whilst avoiding Goobas and Pirhana plants he's gonna lose a life.  It's very rare to see a platformer that doesn't include this mechanic.  The insta-death has been around since Space Panic and Donkey Kong because of its simplicity, applicability, and downright rage inducing trollness.  That being said, it's the perfect challenge for a dedicated gamer.  What gamer doesn't want to get to the end of a level and feel the accomplishment they would of had if they had just run a marathon on their hands?  Sure.  Every once in a while, a player may just want to grind zombies or launch birds through the air.  But for those who really want to put in the work there is a genre out there that will give you that great feeling.

Now, as for Super Ghouls n' Ghosts, this game seems to push the challenge aspect to it's very limit.

As you can see by this perfectly acurate technical drawing, I would classify SGnG's right around the red line.  It just barely remains in the flow section without being difficult enough to rage quit.  Although it was not one of the first platforming games or even the first of its series, this title shows that its primitive mechanics and character maneuverability offer a gameplay experience similar to the previous era.  It is very relateable to the early NES titles whos mechanics were almost better than those of SGnG's.

Not many games out there today offer a challenge through simple, traditional mechanics.  The ability to make a game flow is something every industry should strive to have.  If a game has flow then there's no telling how long a player will sit down staring at the television attempting to master a particular level.  If not, then that controller just might find itself as part of the plaster in the wall.  There's a fine line between the challenging, addicting game and the one that should have stayed as an idea.

Glover

Yet another 3D collect-a-thon, Glover is the same as just about every other adventure game for the N64.  After playing it for a while, it's obvious that the controls take a bit of getting used to and the character seems to have a mind of its own from time to time.  The game mechanics are rather unique.  The player runs around as a Glove looking for a special ball.  When they find the ball, the player now has an entirely new moveset to traverse the levels and solve different problems.  It's a good idea but, as I said, the controls are a little unresponsive for a hardcore player.  For a casual gamer, this game is fine.

The menus and UI are extremely simple in design and control which is nice.  It's apparent that this game was designed for a younger audience judging by the color scheme and funny looking characters.  Bright colors and very definite features make this game easy to look at.  It's also worth noting that almost all of the text in this game is very large and easy to read.

The sounds and music in this game are very distinct and blend in rather well.  There is very traditional N64 music in the levels that you could listen to all day (which some kids do).  Even the subtlest of sound effects seem to give this game a nice, enjoyable feel.  As with any of the revolutionary 3D N64 games, Glover has a couple points where it can be broken.

All in all this game really isn't bad at all.  I recall playing it once or twice a long time ago and it seemed to do a good job at entertaining my wee adolescent brain.  It's rather obvious that Hasbro and Interactive Studios really wanted to jump into the mainstream gaming world as this game is painfully similar to that of Super Mario 64, Donkey Kong 64, and Banjo Kazooie.  Of course, that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does seem rather silly.