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....
logo
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
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...
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...
Friday, October 4, 2013
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.
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.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
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.
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.
Friday, September 20, 2013
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...
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...
Saturday, September 14, 2013
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...
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...
Saturday, September 7, 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)