What is the deal with Boss Battles? This isn't some stand-up bit, I'm genuinely confused as to why video games think that there has to be some kind of boss battle as the form of conflict-resolution at the end of the story. With the levels of storytelling that is coming out of video games these days, boss battles seem like a lazy, and last minute, substitute for the end of the game. Personally, I blame Mega Man.
In my mind, Mega Man is the purest form of video game. Running, jumping, shooting, and challenges that nearly make you throw your controller across the room, this is Mega Man. Each level is designed as a challenging obstacle course that puts the players skills to the test. Mega Man was it's own game, and maintained the feel of an arcade game with its simplistic design and extreme level of difficulty. For its time, Mega Man was the perfect video game. To many, it still is. However, the evolution of game design has rendered Mega Man's format somewhat obsolete.
Video games have a way of telling stories that is unlike any other form of media that has come before it. It seems silly to relegate it to the format of : Challenge - Boss Battle. Games can be so much more than just that. Journey, The Wolf Among Us, The Stanley Parable, and many others have shown us how to do games differently. With the progress of technology over the course of the years, game developers are finding ways to engage with the player on many different levels. However it seems as though developers think that there still must be some kind of format to adhere to.
One of my favorite games of all time, Mass Effect 2, has some of the best storytelling that I've seen in a video game. I have lost many hours playing Mass Effect 2, and have enjoyed my many adventures as Commander Shepard. The universe of Mass Effect is one that is rich and full of character. The entire game of Mass Effect 2 is a memorable journey right up until the end. That end being a really lame boss fight.
The entirety of Mass Effect 2 is comprised of tight gameplay with intense firefights that take players through captivating environments with stories that engage and enchant. Then, at the end of the game, Shepard takes a crew and rides off to face down the end while the rest of the Normandy crew stays behind to cover the commanders back. The end of course, being a boss battle.
The problem with Boss Battles is that they change the rules. Yet, this has become expected of video games. It is standard practice for a video game to have its story, and have its challenges, and have its levels, all to end with a boss battle. It's lazy! Conflict resolution does not always have to end with a fight. It doesn't always have to end with fighting an enemy that is one hundred times larger than you are. Journey let players blissfully fly around at the top of the mountain and let them walk into the light in triumph and relief. The Wolf Among Us had players working to prove the guilt of the accused. The Stanley Parable throws all expectations of how a game should end, or even play, out the window and changes the rules of storytelling. Games can be whatever they want to be, and by assigning these expectations of having levels and bosses and challenge, you hold back potential for something truly amazing to emerge. Games are an art form the likes of which have never been seen before, and they are constantly evolving with emergence of new technologies and creative ways in which developers are finding to change the expectations of players and video games. Games don't have point systems anymore. Games don't have levels anymore. Games have changed, and they do not need to be defined by how difficult they were, or how high the players score was. Games are now experiences. Games can take players into the world that the developers imagined. Games change the way we think, the way we perceive things, the way we analyze things, the way that we move, the way that we live. Games have changed! For the better, as well. The video game industry is constantly moving forward. In small ways, and in big ways, things are changing. Whether it's some independent developer that is going to make something that stands out, or a large production house that takes the market by storm with a game that raises the bar. Games are changing.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Tuesday, August 19, 2014
All You Can Eat
There's something about crappy Chinese restaurants that is incredibly endearing to me. They're always good for hanging around with friends, and generally pretty cheap. I usually find that I get my money's worth when I go to a Chinese buffet, until about two or three hours later when I feel an insatiable hunger. Then, all of those feel good vibes from the Chinese buffet turn to mournful regret. I remember that the food wasn't all that great, and wasn't all that fulfilling. This is my experience with most open world video games.
All right, so that was a long way to go to bring the discussion around to video games, but hear me out. I don't much care for sand box and open world video games. To me, they never feel that fleshed out, and I never feel all that satisfied with them when I'm through. Reason being: sand box games are designed to never end. The focus of the game is just to jam around with the gameplay rather than the experience of the story and characters that the game has to offer.
If we take the two games that I've been playing lately: Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and Metro: Last Light. These games are completely different from one another, so it's rather pointless to compare them, but there are somethings that can be explored. For example: structure.
First let's take a look at Assassin's Creed IV...
AC IV is a game about pirates taking to the high seas and fighting against the Navies of both Spain and England in the Caribbean. A majority of the entertainment value comes from exploring the waters in your ship, attacking random vessels and raiding them for goods. It's fun, it's fast, it's exciting, yet there is no real point to it other than resource gathering. These resources are important, yes, and it does make for a good time to be had. However, this creates a vicious cycle of raiding, and upgrading to raid and upgrade. The game just loops and loops, all for the somewhat frivolous task of upgrading your ship. The ship is extremely essential to the game, but a majority of the unlocks come after going through a particular story mission. AC IV gives players the runaround something fierce, with forcing them to go through tutorial mission after tutorial mission just so that they can accomplish the most basic of tasks. This is where Black Flag falls flat on its face.
In addition to having a large amount of tutorial missions, AC IV is lacking in story and character. The timeline of Assassin's Creed IV is completely out of wack as it jumps ahead several years at random times, and characters that should be important show up for only a few moments and are immediately gone without a word. I found it very difficult to become motivated to continue on with the story filled with characters that are unappealing or barely there. Characters and story are very important to how a game moves forward. If the player has little motivation to continue through the story, other than the reason that it is necessary to progress in the game, then it isn't enjoyable.
Which brings us to Metro: Last Light....
Metro: Last Light is a game that is completely different from Assassin's Creed IV in story, tone, gameplay, and structure. However, Metro: Last Light is a linear game, everything that is meant to happen to the player happens. The game is laid out before the player in a manner so that everything can be experienced at the right time. This creates pacing, which is important to inflect the tones and the characters that the game has to offer.
I really enjoyed Metro: Last Light because of how well the pacing was done. Nothing felt rushed, and there was a lot of thought and care put into how the game progressed. While I didn't exactly have the freedom to roam around and do as I pleased, I moved forward through the game with purpose and I was motivated to move forward. However, all around me was a world that was filled with personality and color. What Metro: Last Light has that makes it a thoroughly enjoyable experience is verisimilitude in a completely fictional universe. The story of Metro: Last Light has humanity relegated underground to the subway systems, where they are forced to build their societies.
Assassin's Creed IV had some realistic portrayals of sailing and the like, but the towns all felt too video game-y. Towns had shops where players could purchase upgrades, there were random NPCs standing around, inexplicably flashing, waiting to give the player a mission. Assassin's Creed IV feels like a video game, whereas Metro: Last Light tells a story.
My issue with most sandbox games is this: everything feels mediocre. I suppose that it would be too much if each mission, area, and character were to be portrayed with the utmost of quality, but why not? What if every single mission in a sandbox game had something that was memorable to it, other than a piece of loot that you got, or the fact that it was a main story mission rather than a side mission. I know that there would be an insane amount of work from the studio that was developing it, and it would take a lot of time and money. However, with the kind of money that a development studio such as Ubisoft makes, why not take a year off of releasing a new Assassin's Creed game and spend time developing one?
While both games are completely different, I think that there can be a take away from comparing them. Letting players take control in how they go about playing the game is fine, but don't keep things locked away until they fulfill some fruitless task. Give players full access to your game. Who cares if they don't get around to completing the main questline until the very end? If you're going to make a linear game where the player is taken along a tight track, make sure that you create a world that players want to spend time in and one that they can understand from just going through it. Give your game good game mechanics that teach the player without having to put text up on the screen that describes exactly what to do. Have your linear game have a good story with characters that stand out, and can be remembered.
P.S.
I'm sorry for the delay in posting. For the past few weeks my job has had me working a crazy amount of hours and my body decided that it also needed a crazy amount of sleep to compensate. It was very difficult to take the time to write with only one night off a week, and little to no free time during the day. Thank you for being patient, and I plan to get back to a more regular writing schedule again.
All right, so that was a long way to go to bring the discussion around to video games, but hear me out. I don't much care for sand box and open world video games. To me, they never feel that fleshed out, and I never feel all that satisfied with them when I'm through. Reason being: sand box games are designed to never end. The focus of the game is just to jam around with the gameplay rather than the experience of the story and characters that the game has to offer.
If we take the two games that I've been playing lately: Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag and Metro: Last Light. These games are completely different from one another, so it's rather pointless to compare them, but there are somethings that can be explored. For example: structure.
First let's take a look at Assassin's Creed IV...
AC IV is a game about pirates taking to the high seas and fighting against the Navies of both Spain and England in the Caribbean. A majority of the entertainment value comes from exploring the waters in your ship, attacking random vessels and raiding them for goods. It's fun, it's fast, it's exciting, yet there is no real point to it other than resource gathering. These resources are important, yes, and it does make for a good time to be had. However, this creates a vicious cycle of raiding, and upgrading to raid and upgrade. The game just loops and loops, all for the somewhat frivolous task of upgrading your ship. The ship is extremely essential to the game, but a majority of the unlocks come after going through a particular story mission. AC IV gives players the runaround something fierce, with forcing them to go through tutorial mission after tutorial mission just so that they can accomplish the most basic of tasks. This is where Black Flag falls flat on its face.
In addition to having a large amount of tutorial missions, AC IV is lacking in story and character. The timeline of Assassin's Creed IV is completely out of wack as it jumps ahead several years at random times, and characters that should be important show up for only a few moments and are immediately gone without a word. I found it very difficult to become motivated to continue on with the story filled with characters that are unappealing or barely there. Characters and story are very important to how a game moves forward. If the player has little motivation to continue through the story, other than the reason that it is necessary to progress in the game, then it isn't enjoyable.
Which brings us to Metro: Last Light....
Metro: Last Light is a game that is completely different from Assassin's Creed IV in story, tone, gameplay, and structure. However, Metro: Last Light is a linear game, everything that is meant to happen to the player happens. The game is laid out before the player in a manner so that everything can be experienced at the right time. This creates pacing, which is important to inflect the tones and the characters that the game has to offer.
I really enjoyed Metro: Last Light because of how well the pacing was done. Nothing felt rushed, and there was a lot of thought and care put into how the game progressed. While I didn't exactly have the freedom to roam around and do as I pleased, I moved forward through the game with purpose and I was motivated to move forward. However, all around me was a world that was filled with personality and color. What Metro: Last Light has that makes it a thoroughly enjoyable experience is verisimilitude in a completely fictional universe. The story of Metro: Last Light has humanity relegated underground to the subway systems, where they are forced to build their societies.
Assassin's Creed IV had some realistic portrayals of sailing and the like, but the towns all felt too video game-y. Towns had shops where players could purchase upgrades, there were random NPCs standing around, inexplicably flashing, waiting to give the player a mission. Assassin's Creed IV feels like a video game, whereas Metro: Last Light tells a story.
My issue with most sandbox games is this: everything feels mediocre. I suppose that it would be too much if each mission, area, and character were to be portrayed with the utmost of quality, but why not? What if every single mission in a sandbox game had something that was memorable to it, other than a piece of loot that you got, or the fact that it was a main story mission rather than a side mission. I know that there would be an insane amount of work from the studio that was developing it, and it would take a lot of time and money. However, with the kind of money that a development studio such as Ubisoft makes, why not take a year off of releasing a new Assassin's Creed game and spend time developing one?
While both games are completely different, I think that there can be a take away from comparing them. Letting players take control in how they go about playing the game is fine, but don't keep things locked away until they fulfill some fruitless task. Give players full access to your game. Who cares if they don't get around to completing the main questline until the very end? If you're going to make a linear game where the player is taken along a tight track, make sure that you create a world that players want to spend time in and one that they can understand from just going through it. Give your game good game mechanics that teach the player without having to put text up on the screen that describes exactly what to do. Have your linear game have a good story with characters that stand out, and can be remembered.
P.S.
I'm sorry for the delay in posting. For the past few weeks my job has had me working a crazy amount of hours and my body decided that it also needed a crazy amount of sleep to compensate. It was very difficult to take the time to write with only one night off a week, and little to no free time during the day. Thank you for being patient, and I plan to get back to a more regular writing schedule again.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Sorry, We're Closed
I've been playing Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag recently, and I've been having a blast with it. In the game you play as Edward Kenway, a pirate. As pirates go, Kenway is pretty fierce. He's got his own ship, his own crew, and on top of all of that, he's also an Assassin. But he can't do a thing with any of it. It took me roughly two hours of playing the game from when I started anew to get me a ship. It took even longer to discover that I could sail freely with it. Even then, when I finally got out on the open waters, it turns out they weren't all that open. I kept on getting hit with "this area is not available yet". AC IV is not the first game to do this, but it has been one of the more frustrating parts of the game.
First off, AC IV is about pirates; puckish rogues who don't play by the rules and do as they please. The fact that the player has to jump through hoops and follow the rules goes against the very nature of what the game is trying to represent. I had the money and the resources to upgrade my ship so that I could better defend myself on the seas, but couldn't because the game kept telling me that I had to progress further in the story to unlock something. I'm about 14 hours into the game now, and I'm still going through tutorials on how things work.
Granted, since I've discovered that I can go out to sea, I've been taking my time getting around to the main story. When the game takes its sweet time getting around to teaching the player the rules, it feels like an obligation to go through that rigamarole. I want to be a pirate, and I want to do what I want. The game keeps stuff locked away, and forcing players to go through the game. Besides, I'm smart enough to figure things out myself.
For example, there are forts scattered about the over world. These forts control the different areas of the map, and when defeated unlock things in the area (that kind of unlocking is fine. That kind of unlocking is EARNED). I figure that with the armaments on my boat that I'd fire back. Lo and behold, my brilliant plan to blow the ever loving snot out of the forts defenses worked. I docked my ship, ran into the fort, followed the objective markers and completed the fort. I figured it out on my own. Here I am over ten hours into the game and I find a mission that details how forts work. That is bad game design, and poor planning. The game also takes it's time with getting around to the story as well.
The game is content with introducing new characters and bits of intrigue, but still in a very slow fashion. The game is Assassin's Creed, I should be assassinating Temlars and the like. It took seven hours to find out about the Assassin's guild. Now, I like the story of Assassin's Creed. An alternative take on historical events with an interwoven conspiracist theory plot. It's all very exciting, but AC IV doesn't seem to care much about getting the ball rolling. That's about the only aspect of the game that is pirate-like.
I'll admit, though, for all of the maddening tutorials that you have to go through before the game gets going, the game is a lot of fun. All though most of the fun is had with the non essential events. My favorite part of the game is just to sail about and hear my crew sing sea shanties. That honestly contributes to a majority of the time that I spend in the game. To get shanties, the player has to collect song sheets. Played find song sheets on islands and the like, and can find them by wandering around or by synchronizing with viewpoints and then locating them on the map. When you find a song sheet, the thing will fly away like a Will o'the wisp until either caught or it just up and leaves. Song sheets are a sort of tutorial of the free running aspect of the game. I didn't play Assassin's Creed III, I didn't know of all of the different ways to tree parkour, yes that's a thing. By chasing after sea shanty sheets I learned how. That's a good way to teach a player, and it rewards them with a cool prize.
Anyhow, sailing and raiding ships are the best parts of Assassin's Creed IV. There is nothing more swashbuckling than fighting a frigate, disabling its defenses and swinging aboard when your crew has pulled it in close enough. The cool part about raiding ships, is that some will have different objectives, though most are just "kill X amount of enemy crew". That's fun. That's satisfying. Going through long and drawn out tutorials is not.
If we go back a long ways, to a time when there was only 8 bits available, we'll find The Legend of Zelda. The original Zelda game was completely formless. Indeed, there were numbered dungeons, telling the player where they stood. However, The player could go in any order. Even if it was by accident, the player could stumble upon the last dungeon. This, is pure adventure. No tutorial missions, no direction. Just adventure. There are few games that have matched this. Skyrim comes close, but still requires the player to go through a few things before getting to the good stuff. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag suffers from this in spades.
I feel as though the main draw of the game is the pirating, open seas portion of the game. However, due to the way in which the game is structured, players can't experience this until much later on. I understand that there is a lot of new things that are introduced with each new Assassin's Creed game, however the layout is all wrong. If the game allowed players to tread into the dangerous waters, with enemy craft that is immensely superior to their own, that would be fun. The player would surely die, and have to reload, sure, but! They have learned from that experience. The player would then set out to strengthen their ship, so that they can put up a fight and maybe even beat out those bigger boats. If you want the player to go through with your story, reward them more. The missions in Assassin's Creed IV, hardly reward the player for completing them. With a little bit of cash and nary an unlock, there isn't much of a draw to completing them. Instead, players should be given a huge sum of cash, so that they may upgrade their ship, and take to the seas again. If the player needs to make a quick buck, they can take on the story, and maybe even get hooked on the plot.
Sorry for the super lengthiness of this post. I feel as though it's been a while since I just spilled out over a video game. What do you folks think? How should open world video games be designed? Should their be any structure at all? Did I talk for too long?
First off, AC IV is about pirates; puckish rogues who don't play by the rules and do as they please. The fact that the player has to jump through hoops and follow the rules goes against the very nature of what the game is trying to represent. I had the money and the resources to upgrade my ship so that I could better defend myself on the seas, but couldn't because the game kept telling me that I had to progress further in the story to unlock something. I'm about 14 hours into the game now, and I'm still going through tutorials on how things work.
Granted, since I've discovered that I can go out to sea, I've been taking my time getting around to the main story. When the game takes its sweet time getting around to teaching the player the rules, it feels like an obligation to go through that rigamarole. I want to be a pirate, and I want to do what I want. The game keeps stuff locked away, and forcing players to go through the game. Besides, I'm smart enough to figure things out myself.
For example, there are forts scattered about the over world. These forts control the different areas of the map, and when defeated unlock things in the area (that kind of unlocking is fine. That kind of unlocking is EARNED). I figure that with the armaments on my boat that I'd fire back. Lo and behold, my brilliant plan to blow the ever loving snot out of the forts defenses worked. I docked my ship, ran into the fort, followed the objective markers and completed the fort. I figured it out on my own. Here I am over ten hours into the game and I find a mission that details how forts work. That is bad game design, and poor planning. The game also takes it's time with getting around to the story as well.
The game is content with introducing new characters and bits of intrigue, but still in a very slow fashion. The game is Assassin's Creed, I should be assassinating Temlars and the like. It took seven hours to find out about the Assassin's guild. Now, I like the story of Assassin's Creed. An alternative take on historical events with an interwoven conspiracist theory plot. It's all very exciting, but AC IV doesn't seem to care much about getting the ball rolling. That's about the only aspect of the game that is pirate-like.
I'll admit, though, for all of the maddening tutorials that you have to go through before the game gets going, the game is a lot of fun. All though most of the fun is had with the non essential events. My favorite part of the game is just to sail about and hear my crew sing sea shanties. That honestly contributes to a majority of the time that I spend in the game. To get shanties, the player has to collect song sheets. Played find song sheets on islands and the like, and can find them by wandering around or by synchronizing with viewpoints and then locating them on the map. When you find a song sheet, the thing will fly away like a Will o'the wisp until either caught or it just up and leaves. Song sheets are a sort of tutorial of the free running aspect of the game. I didn't play Assassin's Creed III, I didn't know of all of the different ways to tree parkour, yes that's a thing. By chasing after sea shanty sheets I learned how. That's a good way to teach a player, and it rewards them with a cool prize.
Anyhow, sailing and raiding ships are the best parts of Assassin's Creed IV. There is nothing more swashbuckling than fighting a frigate, disabling its defenses and swinging aboard when your crew has pulled it in close enough. The cool part about raiding ships, is that some will have different objectives, though most are just "kill X amount of enemy crew". That's fun. That's satisfying. Going through long and drawn out tutorials is not.
If we go back a long ways, to a time when there was only 8 bits available, we'll find The Legend of Zelda. The original Zelda game was completely formless. Indeed, there were numbered dungeons, telling the player where they stood. However, The player could go in any order. Even if it was by accident, the player could stumble upon the last dungeon. This, is pure adventure. No tutorial missions, no direction. Just adventure. There are few games that have matched this. Skyrim comes close, but still requires the player to go through a few things before getting to the good stuff. Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag suffers from this in spades.
I feel as though the main draw of the game is the pirating, open seas portion of the game. However, due to the way in which the game is structured, players can't experience this until much later on. I understand that there is a lot of new things that are introduced with each new Assassin's Creed game, however the layout is all wrong. If the game allowed players to tread into the dangerous waters, with enemy craft that is immensely superior to their own, that would be fun. The player would surely die, and have to reload, sure, but! They have learned from that experience. The player would then set out to strengthen their ship, so that they can put up a fight and maybe even beat out those bigger boats. If you want the player to go through with your story, reward them more. The missions in Assassin's Creed IV, hardly reward the player for completing them. With a little bit of cash and nary an unlock, there isn't much of a draw to completing them. Instead, players should be given a huge sum of cash, so that they may upgrade their ship, and take to the seas again. If the player needs to make a quick buck, they can take on the story, and maybe even get hooked on the plot.
Sorry for the super lengthiness of this post. I feel as though it's been a while since I just spilled out over a video game. What do you folks think? How should open world video games be designed? Should their be any structure at all? Did I talk for too long?
Friday, July 11, 2014
The Power is Yours
Games that are often considered linear, often have a negative connotation that go along with that title. However, there's nothing wrong with a linear game when it gives the players options. Deus Ex, Dishonored, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves are games that are linear, but they give players options to complete their objectives in whatever way they see fit. Choice is part of what makes video games special.
Lately, I've been playing Dishonored and it is quite proud of the fact that it gives players multiple paths and choices in how they do things. Having options for your players is all well and good, but to tout them about in the manner that Dishonored does is just bragging. This is how games used to be designed. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and Thief were all games that truly let the player play. Dishonored is a game that is comparable to those, yet boasts about something that all video games should have in the first place. Not all games have that element of choice, but those games aren't very good.
Contrast Dishonored with another game that I have been playing lately, Remember Me. Remember Me is a very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing game. However, the amount of choice and play that the player has is slim to none. This is a bad example of linear gameplay. Remember Me forces players to take the exact path that the game wants them to. The environments are confining hallways, and the acrobatic climbing sequences are marked with arrows directing players in the direction that the player needs to go. In order to break up the follow the leader pattern, the game has hidden small pick ups that minimally improve the character. Remember Me also offers the ability to customize fight combos, yet does not allow for variations on which buttons to press. All of the combos are set in their ways with the specific buttons. The level of customization comes down to the effect that the combo has, as players can assign damage, health regen, or special ability cool down effects to the combos. I'm no fighting game aficionado, but there is something genuinely thrilling and satisfying about hitting different buttons in a specific pattern that gives me a thrill. Because fighting is the main focus of fighting games, the combat is more refined, and can also allow for players to fight the way that they want to. Remember Me has none of this refinement. Combos are set in their ways, and cannot be altered or interwoven with other combos during combat, leaving players to do exactly as the game says, or there is no payoff.
While Dishonored differs from Remember Me in most regards, there is still a structure to how the story plays out. Players must go through a select sequence to get to the end of the game. Having order to a video game with where the developers take the player is okay to do. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a great example of how to properly pace a game. While it seems that, on the whole, Uncharted 2 is a nonstop thrill ride, the game does take time to slow down for moments of tension or serenity. The game also offers choice to the player with its combat and traversal. Level design is key when it comes to this element of a video game. Giving players large areas to figure out the best approach can give them many opportunities and routes to fight or sneak. Uncharted 2 has superb environmental layouts and enemy placement so that the player can make their choice of stealth or action. Even though a majority of the levels goes from one room to the next with confining hallways, the game does make an effort to make getting there interesting. Whereas Remember Me directly told players which ledge or pipe to grab onto next, Uncharted 2 lays out the ledges and pipes before the player but doesn't tell them where to go. There is a set path for the player to take in Uncharted 2 when it comes to climbing on things, yet the player has to find the next ledge themselves to figure out where to go next. Remember Me’s arrows leading to the next step, are unnecessary and makes the player frustrated because they definitely could have figured it out on their own.
Players are much smarter than modern game developers seem to give them credit for. By confining the player to a linear path with no options for experimentation and exploration, you end up making a bad game. Games should let players tool around, even if it's silly and doesn't go along with the narrative or the setting. Let the players play.
Lately, I've been playing Dishonored and it is quite proud of the fact that it gives players multiple paths and choices in how they do things. Having options for your players is all well and good, but to tout them about in the manner that Dishonored does is just bragging. This is how games used to be designed. Deus Ex, System Shock 2, and Thief were all games that truly let the player play. Dishonored is a game that is comparable to those, yet boasts about something that all video games should have in the first place. Not all games have that element of choice, but those games aren't very good.
Contrast Dishonored with another game that I have been playing lately, Remember Me. Remember Me is a very beautiful and aesthetically pleasing game. However, the amount of choice and play that the player has is slim to none. This is a bad example of linear gameplay. Remember Me forces players to take the exact path that the game wants them to. The environments are confining hallways, and the acrobatic climbing sequences are marked with arrows directing players in the direction that the player needs to go. In order to break up the follow the leader pattern, the game has hidden small pick ups that minimally improve the character. Remember Me also offers the ability to customize fight combos, yet does not allow for variations on which buttons to press. All of the combos are set in their ways with the specific buttons. The level of customization comes down to the effect that the combo has, as players can assign damage, health regen, or special ability cool down effects to the combos. I'm no fighting game aficionado, but there is something genuinely thrilling and satisfying about hitting different buttons in a specific pattern that gives me a thrill. Because fighting is the main focus of fighting games, the combat is more refined, and can also allow for players to fight the way that they want to. Remember Me has none of this refinement. Combos are set in their ways, and cannot be altered or interwoven with other combos during combat, leaving players to do exactly as the game says, or there is no payoff.
While Dishonored differs from Remember Me in most regards, there is still a structure to how the story plays out. Players must go through a select sequence to get to the end of the game. Having order to a video game with where the developers take the player is okay to do. Uncharted 2: Among Thieves is a great example of how to properly pace a game. While it seems that, on the whole, Uncharted 2 is a nonstop thrill ride, the game does take time to slow down for moments of tension or serenity. The game also offers choice to the player with its combat and traversal. Level design is key when it comes to this element of a video game. Giving players large areas to figure out the best approach can give them many opportunities and routes to fight or sneak. Uncharted 2 has superb environmental layouts and enemy placement so that the player can make their choice of stealth or action. Even though a majority of the levels goes from one room to the next with confining hallways, the game does make an effort to make getting there interesting. Whereas Remember Me directly told players which ledge or pipe to grab onto next, Uncharted 2 lays out the ledges and pipes before the player but doesn't tell them where to go. There is a set path for the player to take in Uncharted 2 when it comes to climbing on things, yet the player has to find the next ledge themselves to figure out where to go next. Remember Me’s arrows leading to the next step, are unnecessary and makes the player frustrated because they definitely could have figured it out on their own.
Players are much smarter than modern game developers seem to give them credit for. By confining the player to a linear path with no options for experimentation and exploration, you end up making a bad game. Games should let players tool around, even if it's silly and doesn't go along with the narrative or the setting. Let the players play.
Walking Through
Recently I played Metroid: Fusion, because I was feeling a bit nostalgic. I remember playing this game to death when I was a kid and I thoroughly enjoyed it. However, it took only minutes for me to hit my first wall. I’ve beaten Metroid: Fusion before, and I don’t remember being stuck this early on. I had spent a good amount of time trying to figure out what to do next, but nothing seemed to work. I had no choice but to look up a walkthrough.
I ended up beating Metroid: Fusion for the second time and feeling pretty good about it. I made it through all of the trials and tribulations that the game threw at me. The walkthrough merely told me where to go next. Besides, I used to buy strategy guides for games back in the day. Having the strategy guide by me didn’t hurt the experience of completing the game. There was plenty extra to the game that I could have gone back and played, and the strategy guide would have told me where to look. I played the games my way, and I felt good about it. Playing the game with a strategy guide is like having a friend who’s beaten the game before and will help you when you ask.
Strategy guides were cool, and were full of art and factoids about the game. The guides were arranged to have very specific and clear instructions alongside screenshots of the game that showed the player important landmarks to take note of. Nowadays, strategy guides are filled with statistics of the weapons in multiplayer, as a result of developers’ focus shifting towards online multiplayer as opposed to the single player experience.
Games these days don’t often require a strategy guide because they are so straightforward and streamlined that little is left up to the player for interpretation or imagination. Modern game design holds players hands and doesn’t let them explore, or experiment with different methods. Strategy guides and walkthroughs are just extra weight. Players should be getting lost in video games. Players should be adventuring and exploring and trying new things and going outside of their comfort zone in a certain sense.
What makes video games special is that element of gameplay giving players direct control of the action of the character. It’s okay to get lost, it’s okay to fumble, it’s okay to fall, and it’s all right to fail. Video games can teach us these things, and if we have to look at a strategy guide or a walkthrough to get over that one part, then so be it. There’s no shame in reaching out for help.
I ended up beating Metroid: Fusion for the second time and feeling pretty good about it. I made it through all of the trials and tribulations that the game threw at me. The walkthrough merely told me where to go next. Besides, I used to buy strategy guides for games back in the day. Having the strategy guide by me didn’t hurt the experience of completing the game. There was plenty extra to the game that I could have gone back and played, and the strategy guide would have told me where to look. I played the games my way, and I felt good about it. Playing the game with a strategy guide is like having a friend who’s beaten the game before and will help you when you ask.
Strategy guides were cool, and were full of art and factoids about the game. The guides were arranged to have very specific and clear instructions alongside screenshots of the game that showed the player important landmarks to take note of. Nowadays, strategy guides are filled with statistics of the weapons in multiplayer, as a result of developers’ focus shifting towards online multiplayer as opposed to the single player experience.
Games these days don’t often require a strategy guide because they are so straightforward and streamlined that little is left up to the player for interpretation or imagination. Modern game design holds players hands and doesn’t let them explore, or experiment with different methods. Strategy guides and walkthroughs are just extra weight. Players should be getting lost in video games. Players should be adventuring and exploring and trying new things and going outside of their comfort zone in a certain sense.
What makes video games special is that element of gameplay giving players direct control of the action of the character. It’s okay to get lost, it’s okay to fumble, it’s okay to fall, and it’s all right to fail. Video games can teach us these things, and if we have to look at a strategy guide or a walkthrough to get over that one part, then so be it. There’s no shame in reaching out for help.
Friday, July 4, 2014
Raze It Up
I love fire. I love blowing stuff up. I love fireworks. Which is why I love the 4th of July. Somehow, blowing stuff up is a good way to celebrate my nationality. I don't get it, but I ain't complaining, let's blow stuff up!
Video games are full of explosions. If cool guys don't look at explosions, then I'm a huge dork, because I love them. Some of my favorite moments in video games are when I got to blow something up in a spectacular explosion. Let's take a look at some games with lots of explodey bits.
Mercenaries 2
Mercenaries was a game that was all about blowing stuff up. Blow up that base. Blow up that tank. Blow up that building. Drop a nuclear bunker buster on that space over there and have to run backwards a little bit so that you can see the entire thing. Blow up everything! The cool thing about Mercenaries is that absolutely everything, except for the ground you stood on, was destructible. Buildings, cars, cities, base camps. If you saw it, or if it looked at you funny, you could blow it up. Because, why not?
Halo 3
(I know it's Halo: Reach, I couldn't find a decent Halo 3 video. Close enough.)
Halo 3 had fantastic explosions. Bright flares of fire would fill the screen to the point where it was just white. Because Halo 3 was the first Halo game on the next generation of Xbox, Bungie went a bit overboard with the explosives. I'm not complaining. Because it's Halo, there is also alien weaponry and vehicular destruction, which involve blues, greens, and even pinks, making every battlefield look like some kind of rave party of death.
Speaking of battlefields....
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 3 was the first of the Battlefield games that used the Frostbite Engine. The Frostbite Engine was developed in house by DICE to ensure that everything that you blew up, blew up in the most realistic and crumbly way possible. I'd say they succeeded.
Of course there is also Just Cause 2, which has lots to explode. Not quite as much as some of its counterparts, but let's not discredit because it doesn't have total destructibility. This game is all about causing lots and lots of chaos. The story isn't its strong suite, however. One might ask why you would cause all of this destruction. Well... Just 'Cause!
Call of Duty
Call of Duty, before Modern Warfare 2, was all about explosive moments. The series had a good balance between intense fire fights, and explosive crescendos. Like, in the first Call of Duty, when you charge Stalingrad, and everything is exploding around you. Machine gun fire fills your ears, and your view is shaken by the explosions that surround you and your comrades as you charge the hill. Eventually you make it to the top of the hill to blow up the gun emplacements, and fire showers over you like a wave crashing against a rock in the sea. What about the mission in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare when you take control of an AC-130 gunner providing cover for soldiers down below. You safely patrol the skies, raining slugs of hot lead on those who would dare bring harm to your fellow squad. You had a big gun that blew up the enemies pathetic attempts at heavy armor, with their trucks and machine guns. I liked Call of Duty when it was good. Mostly I just liked the explosions.
Explosions are fun. Play some video games on this American Holiday, and blow the crap out of something!
Video games are full of explosions. If cool guys don't look at explosions, then I'm a huge dork, because I love them. Some of my favorite moments in video games are when I got to blow something up in a spectacular explosion. Let's take a look at some games with lots of explodey bits.
Mercenaries 2
Mercenaries was a game that was all about blowing stuff up. Blow up that base. Blow up that tank. Blow up that building. Drop a nuclear bunker buster on that space over there and have to run backwards a little bit so that you can see the entire thing. Blow up everything! The cool thing about Mercenaries is that absolutely everything, except for the ground you stood on, was destructible. Buildings, cars, cities, base camps. If you saw it, or if it looked at you funny, you could blow it up. Because, why not?
Halo 3
(I know it's Halo: Reach, I couldn't find a decent Halo 3 video. Close enough.)
Halo 3 had fantastic explosions. Bright flares of fire would fill the screen to the point where it was just white. Because Halo 3 was the first Halo game on the next generation of Xbox, Bungie went a bit overboard with the explosives. I'm not complaining. Because it's Halo, there is also alien weaponry and vehicular destruction, which involve blues, greens, and even pinks, making every battlefield look like some kind of rave party of death.
Speaking of battlefields....
Battlefield 3
Battlefield 3 was the first of the Battlefield games that used the Frostbite Engine. The Frostbite Engine was developed in house by DICE to ensure that everything that you blew up, blew up in the most realistic and crumbly way possible. I'd say they succeeded.
Just Cause 2
Of course there is also Just Cause 2, which has lots to explode. Not quite as much as some of its counterparts, but let's not discredit because it doesn't have total destructibility. This game is all about causing lots and lots of chaos. The story isn't its strong suite, however. One might ask why you would cause all of this destruction. Well... Just 'Cause!
Call of Duty
Call of Duty, before Modern Warfare 2, was all about explosive moments. The series had a good balance between intense fire fights, and explosive crescendos. Like, in the first Call of Duty, when you charge Stalingrad, and everything is exploding around you. Machine gun fire fills your ears, and your view is shaken by the explosions that surround you and your comrades as you charge the hill. Eventually you make it to the top of the hill to blow up the gun emplacements, and fire showers over you like a wave crashing against a rock in the sea. What about the mission in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare when you take control of an AC-130 gunner providing cover for soldiers down below. You safely patrol the skies, raining slugs of hot lead on those who would dare bring harm to your fellow squad. You had a big gun that blew up the enemies pathetic attempts at heavy armor, with their trucks and machine guns. I liked Call of Duty when it was good. Mostly I just liked the explosions.
Explosions are fun. Play some video games on this American Holiday, and blow the crap out of something!
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Make Something (Part 3/3)
I find myself complaining a lot about kids these days and the games they have to play. What, with their Halos, and Calls to Duty. Yet, most kids that I find myself coming in contact with don't play either of those games, or anything of the sort. What I have found, is that they all like Minecraft.
Minecraft is a game that has taken the world by storm, for no discernible reason. The game came straight out of left field, and suddenly it's a household name. Why is that?
I think it's because we, as people, enjoy building stuff. We like to put in the hard work, and we like to use our imagination to be able to say "Look what I made!" That's exciting, and the kids love it. There is something special about building up your fortress in Minecraft, and admiring all of the work that you've put into it. Exploring to find the resources, digging them up, fighting off the mobs, avoiding falling in lava, and finally making it back to get to work. Minecraft may be a really boring game to watch, but it is a thrill to play. You can level the entire world of Minecraft, just so that you can make whatever kind of structure, or sculpture your heart desires. From that, there is a sense of accomplishment.You put in the work, and the hours, the blood sweat and tears to build what you had envisioned. Minecraft isn't the only game to allow for this level of creation.
Lots of games these days are offering up custom tools to allow players to make, well, whatever. Little Big Planet 2 introduced a creation mode that allowed players to change up the rules of the game, to go from a sidescrolling platformer to an arcade style shooter like Galaga, or a cart racer, or a sports game, or a music rhythm game. Players are very creative people if you give them the option and freedom to make something. Similar to Minecraft, players put in a lot of work to make a really amazing mod for Little Big Planet 2. Little Big Planet 3 looks to take that level of creation even further with new characters, who change the mechanics of the game, and new layers to their levels. All while maintaining that adorable aesthetic.
These are ways that we, as players, can feel powerful without having to enact any kind of violence on a digital representation of our fellow man. They may be few and far between, but nonviolent power trips are out there. Remember playing Rock Band or Guitar Hero? Those games made you feel awesome. At least when you were playing well. Sure, the music was all set along a track, and you had to play it note for note, but the instrument you were playing wouldn't be there without the player there. Without a single element from the song, it would feel empty. Harmonix did this earlier with their game Amplitude. The game had songs with different tracks for players to play and complete. Setting off one track would free up the player to go to another and so on. Once the player got into a rhythm, which is a core mechanic of the game, the player could go right on down the line until the end of the song with ease. The player had the sense that they were making music, and it was awesome.
Speaking of going down tracks, which the only kind of transition that I could think to make, how about racing games? Have you ever wanted to drive a car that is worth more than you would ever make in your life? To feel the power behind it, and push it to its limits without fear of consequence? Racing games like Forza, Need for Speed, Grid, Gran Turismo, let players do something that they will most likely never get the chance to do. I love going fast, and I love cars. For those reasons, I love racing games. Drifting around corners, music blaring out of my speakers. Those are things that I cannot do in my car, at least without fear of my engine breaking down. I also don't have the time or money, or knowledge of engines, to do the things that I did for my cars in games like Forza Motorsport 3, or Need for Speed Underground.
There are many ways in which video games make us feel awesome, and it doesn't have to involve a gun. Games can take us to new worlds, let us do awesome things, and let us create something that's never been thought of before. Games are far more than just power trips, or mindless violence. Games can be creative tools, and they an give us incredible experiences. When you look beyond the haze of recycled schlock that is put out on a regular basis, you can find some amazing gems that are worth playing, for both young and old.
Minecraft is a game that has taken the world by storm, for no discernible reason. The game came straight out of left field, and suddenly it's a household name. Why is that?
I think it's because we, as people, enjoy building stuff. We like to put in the hard work, and we like to use our imagination to be able to say "Look what I made!" That's exciting, and the kids love it. There is something special about building up your fortress in Minecraft, and admiring all of the work that you've put into it. Exploring to find the resources, digging them up, fighting off the mobs, avoiding falling in lava, and finally making it back to get to work. Minecraft may be a really boring game to watch, but it is a thrill to play. You can level the entire world of Minecraft, just so that you can make whatever kind of structure, or sculpture your heart desires. From that, there is a sense of accomplishment.You put in the work, and the hours, the blood sweat and tears to build what you had envisioned. Minecraft isn't the only game to allow for this level of creation.
Lots of games these days are offering up custom tools to allow players to make, well, whatever. Little Big Planet 2 introduced a creation mode that allowed players to change up the rules of the game, to go from a sidescrolling platformer to an arcade style shooter like Galaga, or a cart racer, or a sports game, or a music rhythm game. Players are very creative people if you give them the option and freedom to make something. Similar to Minecraft, players put in a lot of work to make a really amazing mod for Little Big Planet 2. Little Big Planet 3 looks to take that level of creation even further with new characters, who change the mechanics of the game, and new layers to their levels. All while maintaining that adorable aesthetic.
These are ways that we, as players, can feel powerful without having to enact any kind of violence on a digital representation of our fellow man. They may be few and far between, but nonviolent power trips are out there. Remember playing Rock Band or Guitar Hero? Those games made you feel awesome. At least when you were playing well. Sure, the music was all set along a track, and you had to play it note for note, but the instrument you were playing wouldn't be there without the player there. Without a single element from the song, it would feel empty. Harmonix did this earlier with their game Amplitude. The game had songs with different tracks for players to play and complete. Setting off one track would free up the player to go to another and so on. Once the player got into a rhythm, which is a core mechanic of the game, the player could go right on down the line until the end of the song with ease. The player had the sense that they were making music, and it was awesome.
Speaking of going down tracks, which the only kind of transition that I could think to make, how about racing games? Have you ever wanted to drive a car that is worth more than you would ever make in your life? To feel the power behind it, and push it to its limits without fear of consequence? Racing games like Forza, Need for Speed, Grid, Gran Turismo, let players do something that they will most likely never get the chance to do. I love going fast, and I love cars. For those reasons, I love racing games. Drifting around corners, music blaring out of my speakers. Those are things that I cannot do in my car, at least without fear of my engine breaking down. I also don't have the time or money, or knowledge of engines, to do the things that I did for my cars in games like Forza Motorsport 3, or Need for Speed Underground.
There are many ways in which video games make us feel awesome, and it doesn't have to involve a gun. Games can take us to new worlds, let us do awesome things, and let us create something that's never been thought of before. Games are far more than just power trips, or mindless violence. Games can be creative tools, and they an give us incredible experiences. When you look beyond the haze of recycled schlock that is put out on a regular basis, you can find some amazing gems that are worth playing, for both young and old.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)