Steam Demon- WIP

Back Again, Famous Last Words...

After having played through Call of Duty: Black Ops, I've realised a few things. First, how a game can take you on an emotional rollercoaster and secondly, how games can take you on an unplanned rollercoaster of emotion.

The first is fairly straight forward, the writers, designers and overall production of the game, in the solo campaign, is there to tell a story and with all good stories, the reader, or gamer, will experience the same emotions that the main character experiences. At least, that's the idea. COD:BO does it very well, the story brings together pieces of the puzzle that, at points, make you really take a step back and say 'Wow, I didn't see that coming.' One issue that videogames face that books or movies can get away with, is the idea of cutting from scene to scene. In books or movies, readers/watchers, are ok with the idea of passively going through the world with whatever character is on screen because that's how the experience plays out and that's how things will come together in the end. However, this doesn't always translate well into story telling for games. As of the recent iterations, the COD installements, have attempted to do a similar form of story telling by going back and forth between main characters and as a result, provided a varied experience to the player. However, what this does to a gamer is create a disconnect between the story and the action. More often than not, gamers will hardly play a game from start to finish in one sitting, making the experience even more disjointed and harder to follow.

Where do you draw the line? It's a double edged sword for games. If the experience is too linear we'll get bored. A nice solution to this situation can be found in Alan Wake or even Alone in the Dark. Everytime you load the game, it would give you a 'Previously on Alone in the Dark' similar to how television shows recap previous episodes. This would help keep the continuity in the story and rebuild the interest the gamer had in the story in the first place.

2 parts chainsaw and 1 part paddle...

Roughly 4 years ago we were exposed to one of the 360s most original ( and unoriginal, due to legal litigation) titles. Dead Rising came out of nowhere to surprise us all with a sandbox game that brought something new, different and very Japanese to the western market. With expiring timers and an arsenal of weapons that fills up the very mall you're trapped in. Fast forward to present day, we find a new protagonist in a very familiar setting. A mall/casino full of the walking dead ready to devour the brains of any and all. However, I'm not here to discuss Dead Rising 2 in complete detail, I'm here to speak about the combo system that has been introduced.

One of the new and, arguably, more interesting aspects of DR2 is combining your large arsenal to create a larger, more devastating arsenal. For those that haven't had the chance to play DR2 ( Case Zero also features this mechanic so check out the demo to see what it's all about) it's essentially the idea of taking two items from your inventory, going to a work bench and putting them together to create an exponentially more powerful weapon. Although, it may seem that you have limitless possibilities, you're actually limited by the fact that only certain items can be used to combine together AND only a certain items fit other items. For example, you can only combine the drill with two other items (bucket and spear) even though all three items are combinable, the drill only functions with those two items. There is a lack of flexibility in how these items interact. You are basically giving me a shopping mall full of items and telling me only some can do certain things and limiting me even further by saying there are only a select items that do that interaction.

So let's put ourselves in the minds of the designers for a moment. The premiss of DR2 is to feel that you have to use your environment's 'limited' resources to their maximum. They wouldn't want you to be able to do limit less with limited resources. The issue comes up with scratch card system that they have implemented. When you combine two weapons, you get a scratch card telling you how to make the item for future reference ( leveling up also unlocks cards that reveal combos you may have not known) but since your inventory is limited and combinations are limited to themselves you are stuck trying to guess what item combos with what other item. A very frustrating and time consuming excercise. As you arrive in a workbench room, there are usually items nearby that will combine to form items. There are even movie posters scattered about the city that clue you into what you can combine. So from a design point of view, they were thinking ahead but it's not quite enough. With so much to see and do, it would have been nice to have a road map of possible combinations. Since you're never really certain as to what could combine with another, it would have been interesting to see a map ( or matrix) of how certain items interact with one another and have it keep you updated with how many possible combinations remain for any given item. That would allow you to better allocate your inventory space to save items that you haven't completed exploring or know that you couldn't do anything further with them.

Now, let's lace up the game designer boots but from a more organic point of view. I appreciate that if every item in the mall could combine with every other item, the game could very well have exploded. I can accept that only certain items have the characteristic of being combinable. Instead of limiting the items that you can combine with, why not just have all those item interact with all the other items? That would allow the player to try various combinations, find more interesting uses for certain items and feel that their inventory space is not wasted.

Is DR2 fun? It is. Are the new features including the combinations worth the play? It really depends. If you've never played Dead Rising before, I would say to check out Case Zero on the XBLA first. That gives you a good cross section of what to expect. If you enjoyed that, then the good news is that your levels transfer over to DR2.

Remember, if you think a chainsaw and an oar doesn't work, think again! Happy choppin' and Happy Halloween!

I haven't been swept away by the flood!

Greetings fellow gamers,

It has been over a month since my last post but I haven't forgotten about my blog! It's October...the games are just flowing now, too many sometimes. Currently I'm playing through Dead Rising 2 and having just come off Lost Planet 2 (Not the right time to pick up things that are less than average, lesson learnt) I plan on giving my 2 cents about the combination system in DR2. I also have Castlevania on my to do list with Halo Reach...and it's only just begun. I recently submitted an idea for a game design contest. I'll post it here in the coming days...or nights! Halloween is upon us too! So Trick or Treat or Game!

Limited-Prestige-Collector-Rare Edition…

Do any of those sound familiar? Do they entice you to buy? It’s no surprise that video game companies release their ‘limited’ editions in hopes of pushing the right buttons with gamers and pushing them over the 59.99 (69.99 in Canada) price point. Every year, it would seem that an increasing amount of games are being released in multiple editions to see get the up-sell that gamers will indulge in. This coming holiday season is no different (and leading up to it) is no different. Dead Rising, Halo:Reach, Final Fantasy XiV, Medal of Honor and the ever popular Call of Duty: Black Ops. This list goes on and there’s something for everyone. I’ll be the first to admit that I’ve been tempted to buy a sub-par game *cough*afro samurai*cough* based solely on the cover art; knowing that it was a sub-par game. What that tells me, is that good cover art can be a very strong decision factor. At the same time, price comes into play, Afro Samurai was retailing for $9.99 when I saw it. A small $10 investment pales in comparison to the announced Prestige edition of COD:BO at $149.99 and for what? a remote control car that doesn’t affect your enjoyment of product or enhance your experience with it.

I’m not going to get into the debate of collector’s who need every piece of memorabilia from a franchise, that they will buy those premium editions with no thought of value. My focus is going to be on the average game buy who does play COD and Halo but won’t just walk in thinking that the most expensive edition is the one for them. I feel that a ‘special’ edition should enhance what the game has already done or what it will do. Believe it or not, I think that art books are a nice thing to look through, even though most critics will argue that it’s just filler to up-sell us. That is a tangible item that allows you to get a better appreciation of what you saw or will see. Will the passive buyer or someone that isn’t a fan of the game pick up the premium edition for the art book, probably not. Even fancy packaging might only push some people over the edge that were not prone to doing so. From what I’ve notice with these editions, essentially, there are those that:

1. Buy every special edition for every game they are going to buy
2. Buy every special edition for franchises or game that they like
3. Buy some special edition if the value of the content is seen
4. Buy very little special editions due to special circumstances
5. Don’t consider special editions an important factor.

With the first group, it’s a no brainer what they will do. With the second group, they are the die hard game players that know what they like and won’t stray too far from that unless there is a new IP that catches their attention. Gamers do love good swag, but the swag has to be unique in its own right. A figuring or a piece of plastic memorabilia only goes so far. I feel that a limited edition packaging speaks louder than just any trinket thrown in to feel like you’re extra dollar is going further. Take Red Dead Redemption for example, the Gamestop/EBgames ‘limited’ edition was actually limited, since there was a finite number of copies available and it was only available through that outlet. So now my copy of RDR, even though it has the same artwork, came with a cardboard sleeve that has a shiny cover is enough for me to think twice about reselling that copy of the game because I know it’s something that feels rare, even though it probably isn’t at this point. Which leads me to my next problem with these ultra limited editions.

Rarity has to mean something or you’re simply setting yourself up for a gamer that will learn from their mistakes. By nature, a gamer who is willing to buy a special edition of a game is just as quick to think twice about one that offers nothing of value for their dollar. Lets look at Halo 3 and it’s legendary edition, an edition that was individually numbered and said to be an instant collector’s item. So rare, that two years after its release, stores still had them lying around and liquidating them cheaper than the stand alone game. What does that say to us? Well, it says that we were suckers for paying $149.99 since there was no real rarity issue ( which was the value add that they tried to push, along with the master chief helmet) and that the next time they release something like this, then it’s probably better to just wait a few months and get it for cheap if you really wanted it. I feel that Blizzard is one of the few companies that uses rarity properly, their games rarely coming out does help that. The World of Warcraft expansions and Starcraft II are prime examples of games that have become true collector’s items.

Where am I going with all of this? And what does this have to do with game design? Well, to answer the latter, not much but it’s something to consider. Publishers and developers are very vocal on their dislike of the used game market so this is one of the strategies that they are trying to implement to get gamers to think twice about reselling their games, if they have a trinket that makes them feel like value was added. Even though people still end up reselling those games and keeping the toys or the books, the plan seems to backfire. What I’m suggesting is that these companies can accomplish much more with much less. DLC is one way that companies are fighting back, offering the multiplayer component to new purchases and forcing used copies to pay a fee to access the content. If they choose to offer a special edition, make it feel special. Different cover artwork, steelbox case, sleeve cover… Just the little things that make your game stand out and still keep within a certain range of costs. Beyond that, make your limited edition, actually limited! I know it sounds crazy, but if you have a finite number of copies of a game with different artwork and a DLC code for special content, then the next time you release a game, gamers will have learnt that they need to act on that game if they really want that extra stuff. Gamers learn fast, for better or worst. A limited edition should feel limited and unique if you want to present it that way. The littlest thing can sometimes go the longest way.

How Much is Not Enough?

I've played quite a few games in my life, untrackable at this point. The time I must have spent is probably more shocking than impressive, but mostly, well worth it. That brings me to my current topic. How much do you have to play a game to know when you're not interested in it? When is it fine to put that game down and step away for good?

As I have mentioned, I've played so many games over the years that I'm bound to have played a few ( or not so few) bad games. When I say bad, I mean critically poorly received. Low review scores, poor marketing, questionable production value, been there played that. I'm definately open to playing something even if I know it may not be 'good' simply because 'good' and 'bad' are subjective and more often than not I find myself enjoying games that were not enjoyed by others. It probably also has to do with expectancy theory dictating that since I'm expecting next to nothing and it delivers slightly more than that, I'm take by surprise and enjoy the experience.

Recently, yesterday to be exact, I've decided to put down Resonnace of Faith. I won't go into the details of the game since there is an ambudance of reviews and videos to do that for me. All you really need to know is that it's a JRPG that has a non traditional combat and exploration system. At first, the combat took some getting used to since it's not the same bag of tricks that we're all used to. However, it was a very unique system and it offered enough challenge to get me through the first 4 chapters of this 16 chapter story. There was definately a great flow of combat, exploration and rewards. It had definately been designed with the right things in mind, focusing on its strenghts and keeping the action (and story) moving along nicely.

Until chapter 5. There was definately this false sense of understanding the combat. There was a few tutorial battles at first and it showed you the basics to get you up and running. By the time you get to the 5th chapter, their assuming that you are either going to start power leveling (staying in one area to level up your character with an investment of time) or that you are an expert in the combat system. Both which I didn't do. Now, the argument is that it's a JRPG and that the goal of it is to be drawn out and difficult. That may be a valid comment, but in this day and age, it is overhwhelmingly punishing to gamers who are actually enjoying themselves. At the point where I decided that I had had enough, I had already invested about 8 hours into the game and was really starting to get interested in progressing. It seemed that the number of enemies doubled and their levels were increased too, making it really difficult to progress without dieing multiple times to get just the right situation to win the battle.

Here is the question. Is it ok to stop playing a game after 8 hours has been put into it? (having read online, the game is approximately 20 hours long) Some people, myself included, are completionists who will play anything to the end ( I don't really care for achievements at this point and much rather the act of just finishing a game now). Others feel that the challenge drives them forward to getting past obstacles.

When challenge is greater than skill, either your skills must improve or your challenge will prevail. From a design point of view, there should always be a way of balancing those two things in a dynamic way. Many games implement an option to change the difficulty on the fly or offering DLC to unlock stronger items earlier. I would even suggest an "Ask Madden" option ( in Madden football games, the Ask Madden option, has the AI pick the best play for the current situation.) That would allow you to get a tip in a tight spot to get that last push you may have been missing.

Challenge vs. Skill is what makes games interesting, but adapting the challenge to the skill is how gamers will stay interested.

How to Open a Door in 2,045 Simple Steps

I’ve started to realize certain things about design after having gotten about halfway through “The Design of Everyday Things” by Donald A. Norman. (A great book to read through if you’re interested in how things are designed and how we interact with different items, especially interesting when put in the context of videogames…that’s your cheat code of the week ;) There are so many items that we interact with that just don’t make sense. From doors that go in instead of out (or for us Montrealers a ‘poussez’ instead of a ‘tirez’) faucets that go backwards, electronics that have too many buttons and watches that are more difficult to operate even if they offer a simpler way of doing things. But this post isn’t about the book, it’s about Dark Void but more specifically, the Xbox 360 version of DV, which I’m pretty sure is very similar to the PS3 version but maybe quite different from the PC version, control wise at least. Now before I get further into it, I’ll just say that my blog posts will try to relate something about design with something I’ve seen or played recently. Just because Dark Void isn’t particularly new or particularly good (as per review scores) I can easily take pictures of the screen with my camera. Please excuse the quality of the shots.

What’s interesting about the way we use items in the world is that they should be self explanatory. The explanations you need with how to interact with something, the better experience you have with it. Simple enough. The complicated thing is getting the complicated out of the thing… yeah, you heard me.

We’ll start at the beginning, before even putting in the game, you have this controller and its design is good enough that you already have an idea of what does what, at least for a few of the buttons. So by design, on the X360 and to a lesser extent the PS3, there are two triggers which signify that they are used in so form of trigger based action. Dark Void is a 3rd person shooter, so by that definition, the triggers should be an offensive type interaction. The right trigger is indeed to shoot, however the left trigger is used to aim down the sights. I feel that this is to be blamed on games like Call of duty or Medal of Honor, where they designed the controls this way but not every game should use this functionality, or at least not map it to the left trigger, there is a left bumper. Then you run into the problem of what the gamer has learnt over past experiences, that the left trigger is aim, even if it is an arbitrary memory.



If you take a look at the first screen shot I took, you’ll see that the ‘weapon’ is on the left and the ‘grenade’ is on the right. The representation of this to how they interact with the buttons is actually backwards. It is your ‘right’ trigger that fires the gun and the ‘left bumper’ that throws the grenade. The player has to learn these things by either reading the manual or trial and error. There is no reason for those things to be placed as they are.



With the help of Photoshop, and some rudimentary editing (I, in no way claim that I’m any good with Photoshop, I’d probably have better results using MS Paint) have simply swapped the order of the weapons. Now it seems to make a bit more sense, since your left item is using your left hand and the right one is with your right hand.



Take the example further, I’ve gone and completely moved them to a new spot on the screen and it just feels much more natural and there is little memorization involved. The argument to that setup, is that the player would have to keep their eyes in two places at once in order to see how much ammo or ‘nades were left but that is simply a question of moving them to the center of the screen, keeping the focus where the action is.

Doors are an interesting object within games. It seems that everyone is trying to find the easiest way to explain to us how a door works. I see it in many other games and you'll start noticing it now that you're reading this that there is much explanation for something that most of us use daily. The ‘simple’ task of opening a door is rendered more complex that it should be. The screen shot that I took, depicts a point much later in the game, so the assumption is that the player has encountered many doors and interactive objects and knows what button does the action. Another arbitrary memorization, but in this case there was very limited choice of which button should be used. They never teach the player what button to press by using on screen cues or never realize that the player is learning as they are playing. They simply lead them to the object and then tell them what to press.



The X360 controller has 4 face buttons that have individual colours (the PS3 has 4 different colours but the example still works) that can be shown on screen to tell the player what can be done without telling them what they have to do. They could have limited the text in the game and better immersed the player in the experience by allowing the player to look for clues as to what button needs to be pressed and where.



Additionally, if the designers felt that they needed to guide the player slightly, in case they forgot what needs to be pressed, they could have integrated the command into the button, creating a seamless interaction between player and environment.



Another example is depicted here. As you take the role as an AA gunner, there is a small diagram on the bottom right telling you which of the four guns you are sitting at and what needs to be pressed to, assumedly, switch guns. Here’s where it gets tricky, the LB (Left bumper) goes to the right and the RB goes to the left. Interestingly enough, this whole mess of a situation could have been avoided, because sitting right in the middle of the screen are some gauges and buttons that could have easily been used to depict which gun you’re sitting at and which one activates next with what button press. Funny isn’t it, they built the answer into their problem.



The last item that I noticed, was their cover system. Everyone loves a good 3rd person cover game, thanks GoW! But do they really have to tell me what I can cover on with a diagram and a button associated with it? Again, this would have been a good time to use colours and visual cues to let me know what I need to do and let me discover it.



Games are about learning not about being told every step of the way what I need to do. Dark Void was actually a fun play through after having put my expectations way down but the point of this exercise was really to explore just how we use a game and how some games hold our hands too much, not talking about game objectives. I hope that after reading this article, you'll not have to think twice about a door, if the designers thought twice about you.


(All photos taken by myself, from the Xbox360 version of Dark Void published by Capcom)