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.