Boom Box Division

Game Design 2 Journal #7: The one about Game Design 2

2010-05-11T00:13:00.001-05:00

Game Design 2 was, in my assumption, a more focused and intense version of Game Design I -or- "Let's Make Some Games." Game Design I focused on principles of Game Design, balancing for players, playability, rule making, game theory...etc. Enjoyable, extremely. I loved working with real materials and making board games instead of video games. The real meat and potatoes of Game Design to me is in the rules, the manipulation of terms and creation of persistent world inside such a limited medium. No video, no electricity (usually), no discs, batteries, beeping, crashing or installing and the only screens are for Dungeon Masters. Game Design relishes these things, rolls in them and cackles with glee. And so I do. Ha ha...visual.

Game Design 2 was going to be round two with this tantalizing vixen, and I was pumped. However, Game Design 2 was about story.

At first this tickled my fancy. To be honest I really relish story in my games. Love a good one. I watch the cutscenes, I play JRPGs, I re-play Mass Effect for new conversation choices. I own "Heavy Rain" still. It all adds up in the end. Story to me can be a game's bread and butter. I'll forgive stale-bread game play for some juicy choice narrative. The semester began with definitions of story, many of them and sub definitions of terms associated: story, plot, narrative, beat, event, scene, sequence, act...I soaked it up as much as I could really. They were posed as our professor Stephen Dinehart's definitions, and as a result I could not accept them as my own. As is with most creative mediums I needed to develop my own words but I liked his, even if they did seem a little systematic for me.

The class went on, and we did our first presentation Jordan Booth and I examined "Heavy Rain" for elements of immersion. It was a good time, we enjoyed the study and the work. By this point I had the prof's number. Story was king. Interactive Narrative is his oxygen. I got it. And then I started to notice a pattern: I felt like we had done nothing but talk about narrative. Sure we tied in games, we talked about narrative in terms of game design but we never designed anything. We gave presentations, but we never really put together a project that involved coming up with our own ideas, or trying out some of the techniques and such we'd discussed in class. Our "Game Design 2 Journals" became sort of amorphus to me. As I found topics to discuss in gaming I just wrote about them. I don't journal well, but that's another story. As the class went on we realized that we hadn't really moved farther than the first turn on this race-track. I wanted to have added something to my portfolio after these 15 weeks, but these journals will probably not make it there. I stored them online, I called them my blog because I like to make my inner machinations a shared event sometimes. I don't edit for content, I more or less say what I please.

So the class starts to wind down. Our second project is another presentation...the same assignment from earlier. This does not sit well. Where's the "Write a story for a multi-part game" or "Develop a game where the game play fully supports the story, and explain why?" the "Work to create a prototype for a game that writes a story?" We didn't ever connect what we were learning to the skills we were developing as game designers, and I felt the class ending on a low point overall. Without tying in some honest hand-made work in the field we are being trained to be leaders in, we will not excel past the words on the page. To me, training means getting bloody with paper cuts and tests of knowledge. Not quizzes either. REAL tests: application.

However.

I learned through taking this class that Narrative Designer is likely my future job title. I want to be someone who considers questions posed by this course. Questions of how to structure a story, what makes a good story, immersion, how to effectively manipulate literary structure. I love to tell stories, I love to write stories and I am going to spend hours this summer working on a massive world creation project. I really, really want to evolve into a master storyteller using video games. The Mass Effect bible sounds like it needs my name on the cover. Cept I want to change "Mass Effect" to something I make up, naturally. I'm going to do this, to be sure. With Level Zero most likely. I don't want to climb the ladder, or sit and watch a chance to create what I want to see made pass me by even once. Being exposed to anecdotes, lessons and ideas from someone directly connected to the exact job I would be doing was invigorating, inspiring even. I was slightly envious to be honest, but I was more driven to work hard. He'd worked on Cloud, a game by a company I just about revered. Company of Heroes, an RTS I'd actually played. It kinda clicked that I could do this job, that I wanted to do this job. Ergo, when the work gets going in this class I needed to shine, and bust my chops.

But it never got in gear. That was my only real criticism of this class. That we never really took it the extra mile in our work, and our work never really challenged us. Yes, college kids don't read. Yes, we can make awkward power points like champions. But no, we do just grow when planted. We need watering and sunlight.

Game Design 2 was a good class. It opened me up to the reality that I could get that exact title I was looking for but had given no name: Narrative Designer, and I could learn how to define stories and play with techniques of storytelling the pros mastered. Now it just needs to involve some leg work.

PS:

Story: The story begins an uninterrupted section of time in which you, the lucky, are given a unique vision of another world.

Game Design 2 Journal #6: On how gaming works in Second Life

2010-05-09T22:42:00.001-05:00

Most of you that know me well understand I spend a shitload of time in Second Life, the Virtual World. I am a staff member of one of the largest, premiere simulators in Second Life, known as Insilico. I take a great deal of pride in my developments in Second Life, and I often find it inspiring to reflect on how it's helped me grow to understand the nature of the new "community."

Insilico is primarily a role-playing simulator. We allow players to come, join the group's social network on Ning.com, and create their own character to join in the joint story-writing adventure that is role-playing. It's one hell of a good time. My specific job as role-play Host is to promote a sense of cohesion. I judge player disputes, answer role-playing related questions, help players define backstory that's compatible with the established rules of Insilico and generally try to be a sort of oracle for rp. Roleplaying works best when players work together, and sometimes it takes a dedicated overseer to get the job done.

What needs overseeing, you ask? Maybe you don't. If so, stop reading.

When two players have a scene together and begin to establish truths in a spongy reality, important keyframes in history are placed onto a hidden global timeline. Now assume two other characters are plotting something that contradicts or overlaps a truth in the other character's story. More keyframes, none get resolved until they meet though. Now pretend a new player assumes a role high up in a faction's hierarchy. Do you let him play as the boss of a large group of people who already operate leaderless? What if he assert's he's related to another player? Or perhaps pretends to have spoken to them? And finally we have a lone furry, the evershunned, who has to be told that Insilico does not allow furry roleplayers, but they're more than welcome to shop the mall.

My job is to sit in the middle of all that, fingers firmly in the ether, reading and anticipating, smoothing and weaving as gently as I can. It's incredibly fun to watch the stories unfold from the eye of the hurricane. But this is only half the story. This is just the written word, the agreed upon stories and plots. Is this a game?

The game comes into play the same way it does in Dungeons and Dragons for us in Insilico. When a conflict cannot be settled by merely talking it out, or an element of skill/chance needs to be involved to complete a certain objective, or gain a certain item...basically cross any conflict, that's when we use the game. The game typically means the DCS combat system, a special game system that sits inside Second Life and allows players to use weapons like guns and swords, as well as activate powers and skills. It's universal: Any sim owners can choose to have their Sim run that software, and theme it all for their sim. It keeps leaderboards, emotes...the works. We use it to play fight, usually in large group situations or just for fun. But does it ever really solve disputes? Not really. DCS can't be used to solve disputes very effectively, because no real judging goes on in mortal combat, and the party better at playing video games will always prevail, which has nothing to do with reason.

Oh shit, I've devolved into the nature of human conflict resolution using Second Life role-playing as my lead in. Let's see where this goes.

Humans have felt an increasing need to settle conflicts with words throughout our history. Once it was discovered that reading and writing were of value, thanks to the strategic and tactical advantage it gave the leaders of communities, people have wanted to make sure they don't get fucked over by the bigger guy. Makes sense, smart people who can prove their innocence or merit (circumstantially, of course) should get a proper chance. Fast forwards to Insilico. It's a world populated by people who have one major flaw: they need to be able to manipulate a world that relies on sending information over fiber optic cables with amazing precision and patience, in order to move at all. Much less fight. Second Life is slow compared to most MMOs due to its streaming nature, and generally high specs. It can run very well, don't get me wrong. Most of the time it runs like a dream, but it also has some major lag issues and yadda yadda it's not as fast or as intuitive as an interfaced designed to play a game. If you're not good at video games, you're not going to win fights in Second Life.

So to wrap that thought into it all: Even a virtual system of combat, one that in theory puts all players on the same level (due to the uniform nature of the program code), you cannot use combat to settle disputes without pissing off smart people. Big "duh" moment, right? Bears mentioning though. Second Life, having no dedicated rule system to govern, allows its users to govern themselves. Lord of the Flies situation, but instead of isolation there's a constant shifting/shuffling of "home" sims and players. Does this mad mix allow the self-governed system to work by promoting the idea of longevity = authority?

*takes a deep breath*

That's enough for now on that. Back to the game at hand.

As a game, Second Life functions great. It's an MMO with no levels, no grinding. A "free" fps (Second Life isn't free, you have to spend a little time or money in here to really get a foothold and start feeling true "ownership" of your virtual footprint. Free online communities are largely empty space.). Second Life players allow other players to judge them. GMs make decisions to ban people from the simulator, or to hire on new staff. The staff are volunteers, players themselves with a penchant for giving back. It's conflict with rules to decide a winner. Cept the game never ends, and people have to play fair.

The rules are amazingly strict in most role-playing settings, but at the same time allow for an equally or even doubly amazing breath of role play. We don't allow flying, but we do allow cloning. We don't allow ears and tails, but we do allow robotic shapes and sizes of almost any kind. We draw lines at certain limits: Almost no Nanomachines are allowed in Insilico, no teleportation, no interstellar travel farther than Mars, no aliens. Sometimes there's conflict when a player starts fresh and decides to open with their alien lineage, or strap on their jet pack and fly away conveniently at the slightest provocation. In comes a GM, me or my partner Ysanne Korpov (German girl, my EU RP Host counterpart) to lay down the fuckin' law. And people listen, or they leave. Sounds harsh? Over a thousand members on our Ning. There needs to be balance, and since we cannot use a truly martial system to judge, there has to be judges.

So I play this game, and I judge this game. Second Life has potential to evolve into something wholly other: a system that as it evolves the ability to handle user generated content could create some truly amazing. I hope to be there when the internet and technology catch up to the creativity of the residents in Insilico and all of SL. It's truly a building block, and a playground, for minds and games of all kinds.

Game Design 2 Journal #5: Dynasty Warriors

2010-05-09T10:37:00.003-05:00

I love Dynasty Warriors. I love Samurai Warriors.

These games are repetetive, slow, button mashy, sometimes very shallow, poorly designed or otherwise confusing as hell. They change minor details from game to game, rearrange the process for skill acquisition, add in features that seem major ("Climbing a ladder", and "Swimming") only after four iterations of the game. Poor voice acting that you can't turn off or turn down, dumb as bricks enemy AI and tricky timing add up to sour its taste in the mouths of most.

However

It's a classic story, told using modern means. After a little work, your characters leap off the screen like the actual heroes of old, cutting swaths through enemy troops to find their leaders, sweeping across the battlefield. You can customise your build down to the tiniest degree, and spread the love across dozens of characters you can tailor into a mad fighting force. Coop play lets a friend join in, and in Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce, up to 4 can play in coop matches online as near gods, battling gigantic enemies and footsoldiers alike. And if that wasn't cool enough, there's a Gundam and Fist of the North Star version too.

I started playing Dynasty Warriors off and on with my PS2. I played 3, and a little 4. 4 was the first one I owned, at least. After that I didn't touch the series for a long time. But then about a year ago I bought Dynasty Warriors 6: Empires on a whim. I gave it a spin, and fell in love. For some reason it was then it clicked. The Empires sub-series offers a deeper level of strategy game play than its other versions (Dynasty warriors has Strikeforce, Extreme Legends, Samurai Warriors, Gundam, Fist of the North Star, Empires and the Numbered games, all as sub-series under the Dynasty Warriors model.)

The graphics were sharp looking, and the create a character mode sold me. I made a badass chick with a huge ass sword, and got to work. My roommate Ross and I played Coop quite a good deal, and we got very good at the game. By the time we were steamrolling most of China on Normal difficulty, our characters were unto deities. I beat the game one night, and it played a badass cutscene, using my custom character, showing how I unified China. It was awesome. Downloadable Content for the game was all free, including packs of music and create-a-character parts. I was amazed, and I became a die-hard fan.

Since then I've played some stinky Dynasty Warriors games: Warriors Orochi and Orochi 2 I didn't like. Samurai Warriors 2 I didn't like. Dynasty Warriors Gundam 1 I didn't like either, but I loved 2. They're still largely a hit and miss series, but it feels like with every iteration I see they're getting closer to the point: the players want to feel awesome. I feel like I can see the direction they need to go to satisfy more American fans, too. More action, more control, more challenging (in the right ways) AI, persistent character creation. But the fan base for Dynasty Warriors keeps'em coming. Keeps churning out the dollars for the games. And Koei/W-Force keeps releasing free DLC too? Impressive, to say the least. They see a model that works and they're rolling with it. The prolific pariah of action games.

One of the things I personally strive for is engaging game play. I really like the game play of Dynasty Warriors. That's right. I like the game play of Dynasty Warriors. It's not so bad once you get used to what it's implying. I want to see someone create the ultimate "cut swaths through enemies" game, no, fuck that, I want to be the person creating that game.

I'm on it.

Game Design 2 Journal #4: Writing the hero in the sequel

2010-03-23T00:51:00.003-05:00

Recently I was talking to my boss at the nerd hole about the character Kratos.

We were discussing how, allegedly, the story of God of War III has a massive letdown ending. A few of my classmates gave a pretty well thought presentation on the subject, and I wanted my boss' opinion. Sadly, I had forgotten how ill informed he typically is about most everything.

We talked on, though. He said that the ending was in fact a purposeful let down, citing that the true epilogue will be made available once enough players achieve a platinum trophy in the game. The epilogue has promise, ergo, stop whining about the story having a bad end, is his argument.

I followed that up with my rationalization of the whole thing. You see, spoiler fans, Kratos aces himself at the end of God of War III in order to prevent Athena 2 from getting her hands on "Hope", the last item in Pandora's box. This, according to my classmates, is out of line for the man who just spent the last three games whuppin' the asses of everything that moved. I think it's perfectly in character, seeing how the gods (throughout the trilogy's epic story) constantly fuck over Kratos, for him to want to withhold from them anything he can guarantee the safety of. I don't blame him! But that kind of reading doesn't really fly well in the face of the game's actions (apart from the climax of the first game, a battle to save Kratos' family). You spend most of the game tearing things in half, living things, and punching gods. To suddenly punch your own ticket? Doesn't add up.

This raises my question: how do you successfully write a character into a trilogy of games?

Trilogy, sequel, roman-numeral epic...it's all the same. You need to follow the basic rules though. Always the same:

Your hero must have a great beginning, and great end to his story. Something complete, something cyclic, that feels well considered and thoughtful. Too much today we see cliffhanger endings in the second act of a game, hinting at the next game in the series. Such advertisements are unwelcome sights, subtle hints that the developers got us this far, they have us by the stones.
Once something is promised to be a series, don't feel obligated to leave the story hanging just because you know the next one's on its way. Final Fantasy doesn't do this, Dragon Quest doesn't do this, Grand Theft Auto and Kings Quest don't use much continuity. Some great games do though, such the Half-Life series, but even that bit it in the ass thanks to their long spans between games. Gamers were left hanging, no true ending to Half Life 2: Episode 2 existed aside from the not announced, not even rumored just kind of expected Episode 3. End your story with a bang.

The talk went on for a short while, but ultimately it made me realize that so many companies handle new iterations of franchises differently. I personally do not like when a good stand alone game gets green lit to trilogy status just cause of projected sales/mystery means. It feels shoehorned and forced.

My two cents.

Game Design 2 Journal #3: "It's like an interactive movie?"

2010-02-24T16:53:00.003-06:00

So "Heavy Rain" came out yesterday, and I got my copy naturally.
I expected something, I had a clear thought as to what I was getting into.
More "Indigo Prophecy," I said.
"Quick Time Event: The Game," I said.

Well I was right.
Mostly.

"Heavy Rain" is very engaging. An adventurous camera aside, I found myself engrossed in otherwise menial tasks at the beginning of the game. Feed myself, do work, be a dad. For an hour I slogged through a painstakingly slow section of the game, getting familiar with the controls and the flow of the game. I drank some orange juice, twice. I checked the clock, and sat watching my kid watch TV. Brought him some cold medicine. It was benign. It was "boring."

But sitting within me was a tremendous fear of every action. I wanted to make sure I did things right. What is right? Right in this case means most favorable outcome. I subconsciously do this every day, but when forced to focus on the life of another person I suddenly worry about every thing. Especially when that interaction is limited to very specific actions. I felt compelled to do specific things. If I worked in the garden, but not on my artwork, would that affect me later in the game? I was tense and ready for anything to happen, any symbol to appear on the screen.

Somehow even the most basic actions became interesting when presented by "Heavy Rain," and this made more complex actions into roller coasters. There was a fight scene I played out, crashing through an apartment. It was ungraceful and ugly. I sat, quite literally, on the edge of my seat during it. My roommates cheered me on, calling for me to "Watch out!" or "Press the button! Press it!" They were just as engaged as me, humor aside, despite not playing the easy to play game.

By presenting the story as a straight shot, with no "lives" and no re-doing certain scenes to do them better, "Heavy Rain" feels pertinent at all times. Even when I was doing the menial actions, I felt like every decision had weight to it. It was exhausting, and addicting. I wanted to start over ten times and try different a combination of actions, different failures. I purposefully put in minor failures into part of the game, worried about characters reactions to certain actions. Example: There's a scene where you have a play fight with your son, with foam swords. I didn't want to soundly thrash him, so I let him get some shots in. But I wondered if that meant I'd get a lower score over all, or was the goal to always win? It was intense.

I can't really knock "Heavy Rain"'s model here. The QTEs work. A little janky, sure. But it works just fine. "Indigo Prophecy" may have missed the mark for me, but so far I get the sense that Quantic Dream has more to say and do with "Heavy Rain." It's really got me interested in where it is going.

Game Design 2 Journal #2: Don't fix what isn't broken

2010-02-10T23:38:00.004-06:00

Bioshock 2. 2k Marin had a chance to take a ball and run with it.

Some say they didn't.

Some say they did.

Why the disparity? Bioshock 2 looks great, plays great. What's the problem?

Some would quote it lacks the twisty plot of the first game, some would argue the underpowered main character. We're playing as a Big Daddy so..ergo...shouldn't we be BADASSES? I agree. The depiction of every other Big Daddy is, despite their lack of plasmids, terrifyingly violent and destructive. Not even the end of the first game conveyed the true presence of these behemoths and Bioshock 2 fails as well. Louder footsteps. Sure. The drill? Perfect. But my health is impossibly low, I don't have a sense of weight...there's some inconsistencies. It feels like they got close enough.

Those criticisms were the cake. The icing is this argument: It was bad that the game play was too much like the first game.

I call mega bullshit on this. Let's look at a VERY recent example of an excellent sequel. Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 2 had a glaring flaw. The world and story was excellent, perfect even. But the battle system had some major hiccups in it, as well as the elevators, inventory and the powers you could rank up in. These problems had a souring effect on an otherwise perfect game. The sequel addressed those issues expertly, and left the rest of the game alone. It played out like a Bioware symphony. The stories, the lore and the world was consistent and beautiful once again, and the issues were smoothed. Bioshock 2 did the exact same thing. There was nothing to really "fix" with most of the combat. It was fluid, adapting, challenging and fun in the first game, despite the lack of dual-wielding plasmids and weapons. They fixed the hacking, the harvesting, the...aha...they messed with the story.

Bioshock 2 has a far more linear feeling than Bioshock 1. The story is less about twists and turns, or shadows. You see the plot glaring at you like a bright light and you wonder why they're telling you this now. Why aren't they hiding this for later? But the world of Rapture is so rich with lore (the audio logs, the locations themselves and their inhabitants) that the main story starts to fade away. I found myself not really caring what new Rapture dictator Sophia Lamb had to say. I could predict it, see it coming. It didn't feel like the story of Andrew Ryan's Rapture. And that was a little saddening. I felt like I was playing a game that wasn't Bioshock: System Shock 2 in the Sea anymore.

Did that afford Bioshock 2 a sneer? A little bit. But no less a stellar score. The game delivered what I wanted, exactly what I wanted in most cases. When a good sequel comes out, the good changes are visible right away. They're big. However, the most important thing to remember is consistency of experience. If the player launches into a sequel and the experience feels...off...it's going to hurt the stride of the franchise big time. Mass Effect 2 did just that half step better than Bioshock 2. Mass Effect 2 COMMANDED my attention. Bioshock 2 I have a desire to play.

Sequels. Fuckin' tough.

Game Design 2 Journal #1: Games are not Art

2010-01-31T12:13:00.006-06:00

I know we've had this discussion a lot, it's driven into the freaking ground. Are video games art? Roger Ebert has famously been quoted on the issue, originally denying video games as Art with an argument about "Authorial control," then in 2007 changing stances only slightly, comparing all games to sports and saying they cannot be "high art." Even Hideo Kojima, famously lauded for creating what some would call a work of art, Metal Gear Solid, admits games are not art. From Kotaku:

Hideo Kojima said: "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

I agree. But that's not the end of the discussion.

Art takes on many forms, from sculpture to the fine brush strokes of Van Gogh. It can be installation art, spanning many weeks or hours of time, or performance art that only exists while the performers deem it. You can Google "art" and get pictures, pictures of sculptures, videos of those performance art shows. Museums are, by and large, public and available for the viewing of great art. You don't pay to see the art, you pay to upkeep the building it is in. Now we get into the real meat: art can be bought and sold, value is placed on it by the artist and then a patron who finds it to their liking comes and picks it up. Art is unique. Even an artist that's made 1000 handpainted toilet seat covers uses a unique stroke or two each time. There is a sense of ownership. Art, though given value, has worth that can be assessed before it is bought, and exists as a singularity. There can be only one!

Video Games are mass produced, cannot be judged before being paid for (we hire people to review games for us, playing advanced copies so we can decide if we want to take the risk on spending 65 bucks), and is not unique. We all have (barring defects) the same game. Unlike art, the inability to judge and critique a game before it is purchased makes buying games risky. We wouldn't consider buying a painting a risk, when we can see and appreciate the whole thing before it is purchased. Video Games also lack that personal sense of "mine", like Kojima said "...A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame."

From that, we also glean the purpose for making games: to make money. Games are designed to sell like hotcakes, they're intention is to make money. Sure, you can make artwork for money, but video games are implicitly designed to make money. They have careful, government regulated prices, can be taxed and returned...etc. There is nothing personal in buying a video game that the GAME is providing. If Halo 4 comes out, and you're the biggest Halo fan in the world, Halo 4 has meaning to you. But Halo 4 doesn't know you, and doesn't care about you...the single. Halo 4 has a community, a large group of people with expectations ready to dive down the throats of the developers and rip their hearts out if Halo 4 isn't awesome.

There's a far higher stigma of "Must be successful" placed over video games. "Indie" games, games that are available for free or have no publisher, could be considered art. But it's not possible to call "Shadow of the Colossus", "Rez HD" or "Modern Warfare 2" art, when we examine them against my statements above. The bottom line is: if your game is art, it had better be either free, or there better only be one copy.

Dear Sega, please stop.

2009-06-17T12:59:00.002-05:00

Dear Sega,

Please stop killing Sonic the Hedgehog. The Sonic franchise came from strong and humble beginnings as one of the platforming staples of the early generation of consoles, and has gone through so many revisionings and devolutions that the true essence of Sonic, running fast, has almost been entirely lost to poorly executed gimmicks and lack of proper testing.

Sonic the Hedgehog used to be billed as "the fastest thing alive." We as gamers were treated to Sonic 2 for Genesis, Sonic 3, Sonic and Knuckles, the fantastic Sonic Rush, the fun Game Gear iterations and Sonic Spinball...but something happened. It feels like you lost sight. Let's focus on the latest title though: Sonic Unleashed.

While talking with a friend of mine about the game (which we've almost beaten), we decided that if you were to make the Werehog into Knuckles, and CHIP into Tails, the game would be passable. But by stripping Sonic of what makes it fun to be Sonic, the game falters yet again (one of many hiccups on its road.) The Day stages are fun, fast and twitchy. They're rife with action and destruction and multiple paths and it feels like FINALLY we're playing a Sonic game! Then we have the overworld, the hub cities, and finally the hub cities hubs. Overcomplicated and messy. Collecting the Sun and Moon medals feels tacked on, and forced me to grind stages. I should never have to grind anything but rails in Sonic. If we could only get rid of the overworld, the inventory system, the lame interactions with the camera...the game's score would rise. That's right: by deleting features the game would be better.

Sonic Unleashed is not a bad game. It's an unfortunate one. The Day levels are fun, and if the Night levels were Knuckles they'd be fun too. But all that extra fluff, and the annoying game features makes it plod and drag itself along. I want someone to give me a hacked copy of the game, that's all the day levels from start to finish with the boss battles. That's all I really want from Sonic Unleashed.

Here's the plan, Sega: Open a division called Sonic Team America, and let them develop the next Sonic title. Take a hint from Miyamoto, who says Mario isn't about story. Sonic isn't about story. It's not about the Werehog and it's not about CHIP and it's not about the Black Knight. Sonic is about collecting rings, running damn fast, and saving the planet form Doctor Eggman with the power of the Chaos Emeralds, that's ALL. Sonic Team America will make one game, and if it fails, close'em. You've got the funds to do it, you've got the full ability to fund an American dev team, and you'll see the sales from their Sonic title top the sales of ALL previous next gen Sonic titles. You took a shot with Bioware, and it came out fun and interesting. Take a shot with a fresh team. They won't lost sight of what made, and will make, Sonic great.

Thank you for your time.

-Joe Locastro

PS: After hearing criticism for the Werehog, saying that you just "didn't do it right," is lame. Consider why people didn't like it. The Werehog levels aren't a Sonic game. They're a seperate entity, and they don't belong in a Sonic game. Don't "do it better", cut it. And focus on the speed levels.

Red Faction Guerilla

2009-06-09T18:15:00.005-05:00

So I made a mistake, and by the end of this review you'll be very aware of it.

Red Faction came in the darkness of the night on the wings of stellar reviews. Metacritic reports amazingly high scores for the first few pages, all mostly lauding the games destructibility and fun factor. Let's break it down.

Game play: The gameplay of RF:G is a tough fence for me to walk. On the Pros side of things there is the incredibly fun and rewarding destruction system. Placing charges, using your madly over-powered hammer and rocket launcher to tear buildings to shreds is great fun. It's satisfying to hear the creak as you can tell as building is about to fall on its own, then book it out as the girders tumble down around you. It's a rush.

Then there's everything else.

The controls for vehicles are sticky, making for a very doable but rigid driving experience. (To get really nitpicky: the character you pick up in your truck react to its movements but Mason doesn't even move his arms when he turns the wheels, he's more of an intelligent obelisk at that point.) Bailing from a vehicle is a hard to gauge action and picking up your teammates can be a crapshoot. But the real kicker is the mission layout. The game gives you a map to choose a location from to perform guerilla actions or story missions (which you have the option to do at any point). The main issue is that once you get to the mission's location you are just briefed on the mission, the actual mission is elsewhere. Back in the car, and you're off. Each mission takes two trips to reach, and that really started to irk me. I could never get my hands on appropriate ammo, or plot good routes, because each mission would result in me criss-crossing the map multiple times. To make a long tirade short: the game got boring (Plus, the guerillas never get mad when you kill them all or blow up their hangar I noticed...strange). 2/5

Graphics: The first thing I said when I looked at this game was "It looks like Mass Effect." The lighting is perfect, the character models are well made and it handles me blowing the living hell out of the environment very well. I didn't notice any slowdown at all. It's a beautiful game to look at, even if it is just the dusty red surface of Mars. One silly graphical note is that all NPCs seem to be packing heat, regardless whether they're guerillas or not. 5/5

Sound: The music was second fiddle, orchestral and sweeping as is fitting a sci-fi action game, but the sounds of the explosions and the bullets hitting flesh were spot on. Each explosion was fresh sounding, lingering in the air. Give it a better soundtrack and you'd really be cookin. 3/5

Lasting Appeal: Multiplayer. Without it, this game is Mercenaries 2 meets...Mercenaries 2. It's not a lot different. It's an open world game based on a pretty neat gimmick, and as a result it falls on it's face in other areas. The online multiplayer however is fun and fast for the most part, with destructable cover adding to the confusion and chaos. But it's not enough to hold me over with it, I traded the game in today. 2/5

Final Word: The mistake I made was buying a game without getting my hands on some real first impressions. The story mode left me yawning almost immediately, then overwhelmed me and left me yawning again. I couldn't get excited about the cookie cutter story and the lame mission layout, it really drove the experience of the game down. To solve this little hiccup: give me the GeoMod engine in a game that's not focused on it, like GTAIV or another open-world sandbox. Having the mod system as a side effect to my actions will give high action games even more depth. Right now this red rock adventure is leaving me a little spaced...

...

...someone shoot me.

Score: 12/20

Game Design Journal #5 -or- Categorizing Game Designers

2009-03-29T11:33:00.006-05:00

When it comes to categorizing the "Experiencisticalism" that I've sort of coined, I absolutely cannot place it on a chart comparing it to other types of design. Here's why:

It's too fluid to be categorized. If a narratologist doesn't create "Holy shit" experiences their game is boring. If a ludologist doesn't do it, their game is boring. All game designers use this style whether they think they are or not. I just tend to focus on it, and bounce between styles depending on what the game needs.

The reason I drew a big circle encompasing the triangle because it's not on the same level as other styles. Not ABOVE it by any means but not held to the same categorization as the others. Making a game without considering moments that will entice the player to keep playing is a recipe for disaster. Your game could have the tightest controls, the best story, the greatest purpose, the awesomemest graphics...but if there's not meat in that bun you're wasting time and money. ExperienceasticHolyShitism is everywhere.

I feel that in trying to categorize and label myself through online tests and surveys I move away from what I really am as a designer. Design itself is a fluid art, an ebb and flow of many ideas and types and designs. If Hideo Kojima can make Metal Gear Solid, then turn around and make comedy with it, and about it, and make several successful spin offs, then what does that make him? All the games play different, place different emphasis on story, some have virtually zero purpose...but every game has gamers coming back for more.

Design isn't solid, not for the true greats at least. If it was, we'd all be making the same game over and over again, and never really excelling. As we learn more about making games, and work with our friends and peers we will break down the boundaries of our design types rapidly. People inspire people way too quickly for them to not be affected. By labeling someone, you limit them in your eyes to what you expect of them, and you limit them in their own mind because they know everything they do will fall within that label. But, when we realize that each and every person in the room has the potential to create their own form of design, and that they usually will, we can begin to explore design from many, and much more open minded standpoints.

The chart that holds my style (Experiencismalisticology), and other styles in it looks like this: A big round table, at which all styles are sharing a meal of discovery and innovation, inviting new members to sit with them all and enjoy the lovely day on planet GameDesign. If it were anything other it just wouldn't make any sense to me.

I feel rebellious, of course, writing this in my game journal, as it criticizes the very class I'm taking...but if I can't do this at Columbia College Chicago then I feel I may have made some misconceptions about the school along the way.

Bangorang,

Joe Locastro

Space Marine Psychic Soldier X

2009-03-11T13:29:00.004-05:00

I am tired of first-person shooter games featuring a cookie cutter main character. I can see why some would need to, and I can understand given a context of fighting soldiers and what not you'd need to have a character that fit the bill, but I raise this counter argument.

Name the main character of Pariah. Good, now name the main character of F.E.A.R.. Excellent. Now, name the main character of Half-Life 2. Well done.

Gordon Freeman is lauded as one of the best examples of the FPS protagonist in gaming history. He's a non-military man, a physicist. We as a gamer connect to him better, he makes more of an impact on us, I think. One other great example is Riddick. "Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay" is considered one of the best Xbox games ever made. Riddick isn't a a trained military man, but he is naturally talented and his world is much more interesting than one filled with super soldiers and the like.

Give me a game where the protagonist actually seems more human, maybe even cheerful at times? I'm tired of all this "My name is Blah-dy McBlahperson, and I know the truth/I used to be like you/I remember when it started."

Maybe I'm flowing a lot of hot air, but we've got a lot of room to grow as designers right now, and we need to take advantage of it. The new game coming out of Hi-Voltage Studios, "The Conduit," sure looks interesting and all, pushing the Wii to it's graphical best, but the story/aesthetic looks so boring/done/trite that I'm really not interested in the game at all. I feel like all I'd need to do is watch a video of someone playing for 10 minutes, nod at the great graphics, and go play something else. I'm sure I'll play it eventually, but they could have done so much more with story and development and character, but instead it looks like an amalgam of "Psychic Soldier Battles Aliens from Dimension X". I'm more interested in Capcom's Dark Void, and I've only seen a few screens/videos from it.

A note to any developer trying to press the limits of graphics and graphic capabilities on consoles: Don't let the story lag behind. Tacking on a story that's full of particles and normal maps won't leave a mark. Take the time to fill the world. It needs love too.

Starring Me: My Final Paper for Game Culture

2008-12-13T05:30:00.001-06:00

I began to play Second Life as a passing hobby while healing from my surgery, and I am a cyborg named Hibiki. I began playing Left 4 Dead as a hobby with my roommates, where I am a survivor named Louis. I play WoW to connect with friends from across the country and enjoy the world of Azeroth, in which I am a Blood Elf Hunter named Lacierda. I move between these characters instantly, leaving behind a set of rules and inheriting another. My world is divided into avatars, and I couldn’t be happier.

The avatar is the extension of the player in the game/world they decide to become a part of. In this case, I will use the example of Second Life. Due to my illness I was bedridden for a lot of time back in September. I was sick and unwell, but thanks to my computer I had access to a world where I wasn’t sick or unwell, I was just fine. Second Life filled a small gap within me, and I gave back tenfold with social commitments and promises towards social excellence. Second Life, and indeed most social games, demand a level of respect in order for the players to understand each other. In a world where your only representation is a 3D model you “speak” through, you need to be aware that you, and the people on the other end, are agreeing to disbelieve in each other for a while. Sharing stories of your day, talking about out-of-game topics and even using voice chat all crack the edges of that, but in the end you still refer to that person by their avatar name, remember them by their avatar shape. They’re as human as Gordon Freeman.

As I grew into a gamer, I began to get into my avatars. Even avatars with voices or stories assigned to them like Mario or Sonic began to impress upon me a sense of self; I didn’t want Sonic to die/drown cause I would then be dead. Through that thin paranoia I became a more aware gamer and player, and soon my gaming skills increased. My mind would look for clues to stay alive, to keep moving in the world.

Jumping forwards through the world of the silent protagonist (A concept where the hero of the story does not speak, in order to aide in the immersion of the gamer into the game world), I became Link from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Suddenly I wasn’t a hedgehog with a ‘tude, and people in the game world were speaking to me. They would ask me questions and I would mentally answer, though Link would say nothing but his occasional “ki-ai” shout. This presented me with even more opportunity to get into the character I was playing. I had to put words in their mouth, and take their action into the third dimension. I had choice. Sonic has no choices. If you don’t finish a level in ten minutes you die. Link could stand still for hours if I wanted to, he could smash pots till the cows came home, and the world would continue to exist.

I was drawn in even further with games like Half-Life, where the previously mentioned Gordon Freeman never spoke a word of protest as everything he met tried to kill him. Even more interesting is that in Half-Life there are no cut scenes, Gordon is free to move through the world while people talk to him and around him. I never felt outside of the situation, looking in. I was using Gordon’s eyes to see the world, and his legs to move through it. The movie “Being John Malkovich” is an excellent example of what it’s like to play a well made silent protagonist game: You are that person, but not forever.

As a gamer I grew attached to the idea of being the character. It was light role-playing, solo role-playing, but it was and still is fun. Soon a world was opened up to me though that allowed me to become a character with other people intent on the same end: the World of Warcraft. I was using proprietary images and animations and a very set out list of rules in the game world to facilitate my presence in a true virtual world. This was engrossing and terrifying all at the same time. Suddenly my actions mattered to other people, even if it was only in terms of the game. Instead of being Gordon Freeman and breaking crates, or using my partner Alyx Vance as cannon fodder for comedic effect I was Lacierda Delanoria, and I had to obey a set of social rules and graces I agreed upon entering the world. My avatar became so much closer to becoming a true, virtual “me”. But as I ventured into WoW, I was still developing other selves too, and the use of a handy function called “Play in windowed mode” allowed me to develop across many platforms at the same time.

Here was a situation where I could be using Trillian, Steam, WoW itself and browse my e-mail all at the same time. I was able to effectively multiply myself over multiple systems with little effort, thanks to my development in the information age. The author Sherry Turkle writes “Windows have become a powerful metaphor for thinking about the self as a multiple, distributed system,”(1) which perfectly jives with my mode of existence. However, her thoughts go on to state that the result of this world of windows is a “decentered self that exists in many worlds,”(1) and I disagree. As I use WoW and all of these other programs simultaneously I am not losing my center, much the same way a computer’s processor doesn’t live in each separate part of the computer, or a server doesn’t exist in the real world somewhere. I become the hub: a pathway for information to flow in and out of and through me I filter the data, decide which “me” needs to have the information, generate the information and output it in microseconds. Sure, from the other end, if you had windows open that merely showed the result of what I was doing all you’d see is four completely different conversations by four seemingly different people; But taking a look at my screen reveals me alt-tabbing through the windows, typing, moving, clicking the mouse and facilitating these outputs with extreme accuracy and efficiency. My avatar wrangling skills are honed to a level beyond what I think Turkle would believe possible at the time of her writing.

The most recent technological step for the development of the avatar was the ultimate ability to control and manage all physical features of your avatar and how they affect the virtual world they’re in. The program Second Life facilitates this by allowing us that control. In Second Life, users (called “residents”) can create an avatar that looks like anything they want. The possibilities are limitless, thanks to the ability to create your own items for use in-world. A visual and audio 3D representation of one of my selves that I can fully manage is the closest we’ve come to true virtual representation. I use Second Life for recreation, but I take my avatar very seriously. I am recognized by my name, but my appearance is fairly static despite the ability to change at any second into anything I please. Because of the level of attachment a player puts into their Second Life avatar, they are prone to take incredible care of it, which in turn, is taking incredible care of themselves. It’s a feedback loop that previous virtual worlds had but not to this level. If the avatar looks good, and is talking to fun people or doing fun things, then I the user feel good as well. This two edged sword means if the avatar feels bad, then so do I. As we approach the event horizon of avatar creation (where the singularity is an avatar indistinguishable from a real person) we come dangerously close to a world Turkle foresaw: a world where we really are investing emotion, time, energy and life force into a virtual self, and where that energy can be destroyed as easily as invested. It’s already hard on people when their virtual girlfriends leave them, or when in-world drama spills into this world, I can only imagine what it will be like in 10 years when the world of the avatar approaches perfection.

The avatar is usually reserved for worlds where we create the character, but after being raised a gamer I see that any game where I affect the world puts me in control of an avatar of some kind. Throughout my investigations I’ve discovered all forms of avatars, how much we invest in them, and how much we honestly care about them. The avatar is a part of nearly every American’s life now, from a username in an IRC chat, to a fully realized Second Life creation, to Gordon Freeman. The options are endless, and the future is full of promise and danger but the avatar is undeniably putting the paintbrush of the virtual world in the hands of the user, and letting them play.

Turkle, Sherry “Who Am We?” http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.01/turkle_pr.html

Game Culture Assignment #1

2008-09-07T13:22:00.009-05:00

Quote of the Assigned Reading: "When you read, you are always reading something in some way." -James Gee, page 1

I find Gee's decision to play a more "Adult" game called "The New Adventures of the Time Machine" hilarious. Considering I've never heard of the game, and that Deus Ex was out at the same time.

My impressions of the reading were tainted, at first, from a comment made by a girl in class that the book was "terrible...awful" etc, etc, ad infinitum. That's a powerful statement. Things like that tend to sit unfavorably on me because it

means no matter how hard I try I will already have just the thinest of opinions impressed on me as I enter the book. Well I'm happy to report she was right.

The book was written by James Gee. James Gee, although not openly admitting it at the beginning of the book, was not and probably still is not a gamer. I can walk onto a race track, pick out a car and drive it, and write a book about driving a racecar but I am not a racer. I am a person writing about being a racer, with language I have gleened is language racers use. These are foreign words like apex and drop shifting, drafting and cylinder heads. Sure I know the definitions of them all, why not. I know what they mean and how they apply. But I'm not a racer. I don't have one very, VERY crucial facet to my being that represents true understanding: instinct.

Gamers have gamer instinct. Here above is a screen capture of the game "The New Adventures of The Time Machine" that Gee played back in 2000 (Gamespot gave the game a 3.1, the press average was 5.3, and the developer no longer exists). After reading this, and talking to my roommate who also read this book, we both agreed that despite Gee not having gamer instincts, MOST critical writers lack the instinct of their subject. I digress. Gee didn't impress me, and hasn't so far. I guess we will see what is going on in his mind the more I read this book.

------------------------

The game I have chosen to play for my study is Tales of Vesperia. Now why did I choose this game? Good question. Here's a detailed list of reasons.

I do not really like the Tales series of games. I was never really good at them and I got stuck in Tales of Symphonia and became embittered to the series. I think this game is a chance to open my eyes a tad and feel that freshness wash through. I am pretty excited to be playing it.
It's new. I like old games, but in being critical thinkers I feel it just as important to look forward at what's being played now as to look back. Tales is new, came out last week. It's Xbox 360, it's pretty, it's co-op...it's a forward thinking game. I want to be at the front of something.
I want to test myself. I don't want to write a plot point-by-point. A lot of game journals are just that. My journal will not be. I will try weekly to come up with some way to tie an experience of playing the game into gaming theory itself, in order to generate some interesting articles and not diary entries.

So...here I go journeying deep into the world of Tales of Vesperia. We'll see what happens when I come out the other side. The game is critically acclaimed. My friends can play it with me, and so far (Of the two hours I've played), the game itself is pretty much a blast. Gotta keep on keepin' on.

-----------------------------------------------------

Fallout 3 kicks its drug habit

So, Fallout 3 has been making waves. Personal waves thanks to it being Fallout 3 (I just reinstalled Fallout 1 and 2 in honor), and global waves thanks to its mentions of drug use. The game has been falling apart in the hands of international censors thanks to the inculsion of ingame drug use, and its portrayal. Australia specifically was going to ban the game all-together from its shores, but before they could Bethesda Softworks cleaned the game up. There are no more references to real world drugs in any build of Fallout 3.

Good idea? Probably. A case of unfair censorship? Nope. Countries can do what they like. Citizens will still get the content they seek. If Australia doesn't want players shooting up with real world drugs that makes perfect sense to me. It's rough to admit that media has to still fall victim to censorships but this is specifically INTERACTIVE media. Someone playing the game, someone profoundly stupid, may very well indeed assume that a drug in the game that cures what ails you is perfectly reasonable to use IRL, so to speak. They will likely die, and Bethesda Softworks will likely be sued. So I can perfectly understand the reasoning behind it, Bethesda. But I applaud you for trying. Too many tight hands on the creative process of games stifle world elements like that. I am not condoning drug use, but we didn't need it for the updated (and terrible) NARC, and we didn't need the graphical blurs of Manhunt 2.

Then again, turning on the news...I guess we do.

Review: Castle Shikagami III

2008-08-10T00:38:00.003-05:00

I play a type of game known as the "shmup" fairly often. Shmup is a shortened term for "Shoot'em Up", and it's an intense genre to enjoy. The staples are usually short game lengths (5 levels is typical), tons of bullets on screen with varying patterns (that a lot of die hards study and perfect dodging patterns for), and some sort of unique mechanic (for instance, changing colors in the game Ikaruga).

Early games that this genre must have gotten their inspiration from include the Gradius series, and the R-Type series. 1942 is also an excellent example of arcade "bullet hell" as it's known. There are dozens of varieties of shmups, but I particularly like the "bullet hell" genre.

At the center of that are a few games. The aforementioned Ikaruga, Perfect Cherry Blossom, Omega 5...I could go on. One of my original loves was the terribly voice acted Castle Shikagami II for the PS2. Now, there's Castle Shikagami III, out for the Wii. I couldn't resist.

Game play: Hate to say it, but it's super standard by most terms for the genre. You pick a character, a shot type, and get right at it. Where the home version stands out is in its options. There's many different difficulties to choose from, a roster of ten characters off the bat, two music tracks to pick from and so on. There's even a mode called "Dramatic Change" where you play with two characters at the same time, switching on the fly between the two. The story even changes based on what combination you use, resulting in branching storylines (Not to say the storylines are deep at all, but it's fun to mix and match). 4/5

Graphics: It's a shmup. Not a lot to expect here. The characters/enemies/environments are all 3D, but the game operates on a 2D plane, resulting in moments where you're unsure if an enemy is on level with you yet. They're nothing to get really excited about, in terms of spectacle. The beauty of the game comes from the bullet pattern variety, especially in boss battles. There are several different kinds of bullets, some destructable some not, and discerning them can be a bit of a chore when you're trying to dodge them all. Then again, this game was not designed to be easy. 2/5

Sound: The voice acting in this game, once again, is pretty abysmal. But that being said, it's a step forwards. The voices aren't all that terrible, and the in-game music is standard fair synthy-dance music, a staple in this style of game. The sound doesn't really float my boat. 1/5

Lasting Appeal: The game has several play modes, a few for two players even that up the amount of onscreen chaos to epic proportions. It's got unlockable options, rewards for dedicated playing. It's not a marathon game. You pick it up for about ten minutes, give it a round or two then switch to a nice long haul. 2/5

Final Word: I love shmups, I'll play them forever. This game was made for people with that love them as well. If you don't like your games weird, EXTREMELY japanese or frustratingly difficult, avoid the game and series alltogether. If you enjoy a challenge, anime, or a quick and fun experience, give it a shot and see what you think. My score is based on it's over all appeal. I've included my personal score as well.

Score: 9/20

MY biased score: 17/20, as far as good shmups go, this one is pretty damn great.

Here is a great site to downlaod some free to play shmups. Check them out!

Latency

2008-08-03T11:57:00.001-05:00

No computer, can't really concentrate on a good post but I have MATERIAL.
So gimme a little bit, to get my wireless card installed and maybe tonight I'll have a little something for you.

Peace!

E3? What the hell is that?

2008-07-15T01:29:00.004-05:00

So the Electronic Entertainment Expo is this week, all week, and just like last year it seems to have only half interested me. Anyone who's been gaming at all for the past five years remembers the pictures, the news stories, the G4TV coverage, the booth babes, the glitz and the spectacle of our favorite designers and games unleashing themselves with unabashed bravado and pomp upon the throngs of waiting fanatics. Now it's more of a "summit", with industry only going in to seminars and press conferences. Less panels, less glitz, more about the business itself. I don't think if there was a sweepstakes for tickets now I'd even sign up.

E3 was for me, as a fan, the biggest event of the year in video game industry land. I wanted to be there, to play games and see the latest titles and meet booth babes and get my hands on swag bags full of amazing and wonderful things. It took me two days to realize E3 had started this year. My Google Reader account is chock full of stories pouring in from press events. I read through them and some have me generally excited (The Wii's new motion control accessory, Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox360 and the new Portal title coming out on Xbox Live Arcade) but I miss the glamour. These days, I watch all I can from the Tokyo Games Show to get that feeling again. It hasn't lost it's shine and it's sparkle yet, it's still a massive party about video games. So let's break it down:

I feel that E3 has lost it's effectiveness in generating fan interest. Instead of instant interest and a desire to watch and be there, it's more about breaking news that the fans can appreciate later as the products roll out through the course of the year. As a result, coupled with companies pulling their appearences at the show, E3 is quickly becoming less public and ergo, less effective on a consumer level.

Geeks don't get out much. That's why we play games in the first place. We enjoy being inside, we enjoy watching our TV, our games, our DVDs. Don't get me wrong! A lot of hardcore gamers get their sun, get in some biking and outdoors activities, me included. But I prefer a good chair and a good game for my afternoon exercise. E3 however made me want to get up, call my friends, go over and watch the coverage while we played some Power Stone 2 (I always called playing as Wang Tang) and drank Code Red. I wanted to know that exact moment when a new game was announced, or a new accessory, or something major. It made me excited. Maybe I'm older now, but now I settle for ending my late nights with perusing Reader and catching up, smiling at some of the fun stuff, sharing some of it, and not reading the rest. It doesn't "get my noodle going", to steal a phrase from a Kraft marketing campaign for macaroni and cheese.

I talked to Tommy Tallarico a little while back and asked him about his thoughts when it was announced that E3 was no longer going to be a big show. He said that it was good the industry was consolidating the show, saving money and focusing the show on getting the news to the people who could spread it more efficiently: the press. At first I agreed, and after working in the industry I can see the benefit of this. Save money instead of buying a major, massive display and party favors. But sometimes people need that show, that spectacle. This is the second year in a row that I haven't noticed E3 had begun, and as a member of the industry, that's no good.

I think that E3 should maybe pull a hybrid maneuver. Have a big floor show, maybe not quite as big as last time, during the week, with press events behind the scenes again. Fan appreciation in the industry should always stay high. People are sacrificing their lunches, their movie tickets and their alternative activities to buy your product, the least you can do is dance a little for them. Putting out the game with a triumphant "Here it is" is one thing, but before it's out give'em something to drool about. Something they can hold. A plastic sword, a demo disc, a coffee-mug, a t-shirt! Some fresh screens and an interview with the marketing managers isn't really going to cut the mustard. An important move in any relationship (be it man and woman, man and man, woman and woman, or company and consumer) is anchoring: having something physical that says "Here is a sign that I appreciate you." A hug, a touch on the shoulder, a free Sonic The Hedgehog stuffed animal.

And so E3 presses on into the week. I'm not going to be reporting on every little thing that happens, but I may make some comments on them if they really interest me. My main lament is the lack of the shine, but I'll live. We all do. And TGS this year should be fun to watch.

Be well, my friends,

-Joe

But will it sell? -or- How the Industry is stomping on the vision

2008-07-11T15:16:00.009-05:00

Microsoft + Rare.

Microsoft + Bungie. (DEFUNCT)

Activision + Blizzard.

Take Two + a harem of suitors.

EA + nom nom nom othr compny ar taest gud.

The age of the big company is upon us. Look back at our history. In the early 80's so many companies existed, making so many crappy games that it flooded the market with offal and tripe, games that were made in a period of weeks hoping to be major cash cows. This is just one factor that resulted in the video game crash of 1983. Too many companies, too many games, too many deals, not enough of the good stuff. The good stuff being quality games and systems. Luckily we moved past it and into the era of "steady consoles."

"Steady Consoles" gave us developers, instead of pure publishers. People dedicated to bringing games to other people's consoles. Sadly this still somehow resulted in games like Y0! Noid (read: licensed-for-the-sake-of-being-licensed games). But what I'm driving at is we had developers, independent ones making us some real gems like Earthworm Jim, Toejam and Earl, Lost Vikings (Anyone remember a company called Silicon & Synapse?) and even as far as licensed games go, Cool Spot!. This period is starting to finally fade, ushering in what looks to be a darker future.

By darker I don't mean it's time to hang up the gloves, I mean that creativity is being shelved for profits and deliveries. The video game industry is fast approaching one of the most lucrative investments in America. GTAIV was the largest multimedia release of all time. Some people get a whiff of that and see instant profit. Gaming is $18 billion dollar a year industry (that's games, consoles, accessories and all. Still, they sell $8.6 billion just as the discs by themselves. Thanks Kotaku). Larger companies are keeping their eyes on game schools and small teams and buying them up, assimilating them into a pool of talent that gets grossly misused half the time. It's become a situation that does not favor the independant developer at all, when the big dog publishers loom over them.

There is one company that seems to be attempting to get things right. Gamecock, responsible for Dementium: The Ward, Insectiside and upcoming Velvet Assassin, lets developers keep their intellectual property, opting for an approach that stimulates creativity and artistry in game design. This is magnificent. It makes me want to shout from the roof tops. Gamecock is not a big company by US standards, but they're doing things right.

An example of doing things wrong is the current green-light process of some major companies. The criteria for a big developer to green-light a game is pretty lame:

Has there ever been a game like it? Funny thing is, if the answer to this question is no, the project is less likely to be accepted. If yes, see below.
Did it make money? If the answer is no, say goodnight. If yes, proceed.
How can we make it like X without making it X? Look around. Look at what new games are coming out. A lot of them fit this mold.
So, we make it x. Which isn't enough like X to be a clone. Congrats, project is green-lit.

This mode leads to games that aren't bad by any means, but they're not a stretch either. The only other easy way to green-light a game would be a sequel or a contract/license. Maximize return, minimize risk. Release a ton of small games to pad the bills until the big ones hit. Need some money? Make a Brain-Age clone. Make a collection of mini-games. Instant cash.

The industry is slowly becoming one run by businessmen. Business men know money, but do they know creative process for gaming? Do they know a good game idea or do they know a lucrative game idea. Making a game based on trends of the industry is one thing, but after a while the waves of those trends get stale. Games need to come in and shake things up. Even Mirror's Edge, the new EA avant-garde, is reminiscent of Breakdown, Namco's arcade-esque FPS. Innovation is waning, and the desire for return is on the rise. PS: DICE is a swedish developer that EA owns. No points for American ingenuity there.

Maybe all my ramblings are the ramblings of an over-worried developer. Maybe the industry is going to use this talent they're swallowing up and not just trying to ride revenues from big name titles *cough*GTAIV*cough*. Maybe the sky will open up and the hand/tentacle/appendage of {insert deity of your choice} will reach down and bless us independent developers with the ability to produce our games in an environment that says to the artist "We appreciate your abilities, go ahead and use them to their best!", instead of "Act clever, so we can buy you."

-Joe

Mini Post: The Biblical name for him is James.

2008-07-10T13:02:00.003-05:00

I've added a link on my right hand page to my friend James Mosingo's blog. He's a concept artist and designer savant out of Chicago, really top notch friend of mine. Head on over to his blog to check out some of his artwork. It's absolutely boss.

And then there was the Wii...

2008-07-10T01:29:00.009-05:00

Note: I've become addicted to Google Reader, as well as playing Dungeon Siege II. I need someone to play with. Sorry again for latency in posting, but work demands my time, and I haven't had time to really put together a good editorial. I should do a review of some games...tune in this weekend.

----------------------------------

"Game Party", "Game Party 2", "Carnival Games", "Pong Toss"...the list goes on. Casual Gaming used to be a world of Pop-Cap games on your PC (Peggle, Bejeweled...etc), but it seems like people got a good whiff of the Wii's brand of casual fun and suddenly developers EVERYWHERE are crapping out games like the aforementioned. Why? Because it's easy to throw down a sneezy handful of mini-games and call it a release, that's why.

Looking at the time and energy going into these titles it seems like companies are taking their talent and saying "Alright now, let's take the few of you that aren't yet or already did work on our next big fall title and have you churn out one for the kids." I honestly have never considered buying, renting or casting a gaze on Game Party or Carnival Games, much less the upcoming titular titles Pong Toss ("Beer Pong" in a non-orwellian universe) and Major League Eating. Major League Eating.../headdesk /headdesk /headdesk.

Also coming into the Wii's court are games like last years Soul Caliber Legends, Skate It, Link's Crossbow Training (fun game, all said and done) and even a graphicall toned down port of Ghostbusters. Soul Caliber did poorly, Skate It is a walking gimmick...it makes me feel like the Wii is the last system people look to when thinking about NEW games. However, the Japanese still seem to love it. Platinum Games has MadWorld (pictured) coming out, Suda 51 gave us No More Heroes, Nintendo is churning out much new content for it. It leads me to this:

Do American companies see the Wii as a viable platform for a new title, or as an afterthought platform better used for ports and mini-games?

Graphically the Wii falls short, processor-wise, Internet-wise. All in all it's not the powerhouse the PS3/Xbox360 is. That oomph, that extra step seems to be what American companies want in their games out of the box. American audiences are quickly becoming an HD audience. HD with a nice 5.1 system and no time for measly "component" cables. The Wii is getting the brunt of this discrimination with the onslaught of afterthought games. I hereby christen the genre: Afterthoughts.

I see American companies throwing out afterthoughts left and right. Some people (myself included sometimes) may see this as good old fashioned Americanism. Is it fast, sexy and bigger than life? No. Is it apple pie? No. Then we don't have time to waste on it! Small teams, small games, little victories and critical failures says to me that some companies straight up don't give a hoot. To be in the age where gaming is beginning to crack at the hinges (Innovation vs. Graphics) and not to take advantage of half the playing field is lunacy. Eventually graphics will look so good we can't distinguish them from real life. Then what? Better graphics? The Wii is getting started early, pulling a Dreamcast if you will. We remember how that ended, and this string of casual, budget titles could spell the end of the Wii's American credibility. It will become that trend that so many analyst are predicting it is, and that's sad.

I want to challenge developers out there to consider the Wii FIRST when looking for inspiration. The gimmick was there at the start with motion control, it quickly died down into a steady period of decent Japanese exports hitting our shelves. We need to look at the system the way they do: Use it to it's creative potential, not just it's graphical or processing potential. I feel like if one company really tried marketing a serious game on the Wii, it'd turn a few heads. I don't mean games like Rock and Roll Adventure, I mean something fresh, maybe even a little avant garde. Ubisoft seems to be heading down the right track, from up north. Let's get on the ball USA.

Time to get fresh.

-Joe

Can Ratings save our children? Nope!

2008-07-03T00:15:00.008-05:00

A lot of the press lately has focused around legislation for games. GamePolitics.com has been a good read as well. There was that bill in NY about labelling all games sold in the state with clear ratings, and the teens who were arrested while purportedly acting out a real-life Grand Theft Auto scenario (and the stir that's caused). And let's not forget my previously mentioned Conn. Senator Gayle Slossberg's accusation and backpedal about a rape scene in GTA.

...looking at it like that nearly all the news in the past week has probably been based around GTAIV in some way.

To my point: The ESRB. EC for Early Childhood, E for Everyone, E +10 for Everyone but probably better for people over 10, T for Teen, M for Mature, AO for Adults Only. These ratings seem like they cover good ground. Something for everyone. M rated games, in most states are illegal to sell to anyone under the age of 17. Strict store policy at Game Stop. M rated game? Check their ID no matter their age. Obviously this can't keep them out of the hands of misinformed parents, so I propose a second set of impositions on poor store clerks:

Tell the parents what's in the games. If you let them know of the games actual content, they may feel more informed themselves about buying the game for themselve or as a gift.
Actively help them find a game in the store from the time they walk in. 9/10 people will shrug you off, but at least you will have tried to avoid a case of "You let me buy my son this game, and it's full of tripe and offal!"

The ratings board is there for a reason, obviously, but no amount of marking a box of cigarettes has ever stopped humanity from smoking them. I'm not a fan of censorship, by any reasoning, but I think kids under the age of 17 should not be playing M rated games. Logging into Xbox Live and squaring off against an 8 year old in GTAIV speaks volumes to the quality of parenting in today's shopping world.

The legislation that NY just passed seems like a great idea to me. I just hope that it doesn't swing around and somehow turn into a seven headed hydra.

Let's see...if I was a gaming law what would I be?

Any persons looking to purchase an M rated title must be a) able to operate a motor vehicle and b) pass a basic intellectual apptitude test. Any persons found buying M rated titles for younger persons will be flogged about the head with rolled up newspapers while the enforcer chants "Bad! You were very bad today!"

Ahhhh...to dream.

Storytime. I was working one day at GameStop and on my way into work I passed a one-legged homeless man in the parking lot. This is kind of status quo for Chicago. He was asleep, so I quietly let him be. At work, a kid comes in looking about 15, wants to buy a copy of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I ask for id, he has none, he leaves. He comes back in, closely followed by the one-legged homeless guy. They start browsing. My right eyebrow draws slowly upward. They walk to the counter, and my manager Chris steps forwards. The one-legged man tries to buy GTA for "his nephew." Chris says that he just saw the man sleeping in the woodchips next to Walgreens, and that the kid was not his nephew. The man insists he was just waiting in the car for the kid to buy the game. Chris doesn't buy it. The kid gives up and leaves the store, one-legged man in tow.

Good times.

-Joe

Racism in Resident Evil 5: a Halfrican's take.

2008-06-26T02:21:00.011-05:00

Sorry for the latency in posting, been working nights lately, doesn't leave much time for thought.
That's why this post is coming at 3:30am on Thursday morning.
BUT...I PRESS ON!!!

---------------------

First, watch this video. It's the Resident Evil 5 trailer from last year. It's the video referenced in most of the articles to follow.

Now, let me draw your attention to this article (which links to an article with a video attached) and this one too, and finally this one. Give'em a look. (And once again Kotaku, my humblest thanks for giving me stuff to read. Where I work right now, the firewall filters "games" as a meta subject, so only some news sites get through. Word to you.)

I'm only half black, half white. While I joke this gives me no racial leverage whatsoever, I feel very much ingrained with certain desires to understand my race. This issue of Resident Evil 5 being a racist game has given me a chance to look towards my representation of myself as a game designer. I don't really think I run the risk of being considered more one color or another depending on my blog here, but maybe in some peoples eyes I do. The point of the blog though, is RE:5 purpotraying racist imagery? More importantly, are they doing it on purpose?

This is an excellent article to start with. It's Dyske Suematsu's take on Japanese people and their interactions with other races. The Japanese people seem to have the magnifying glass on their race in two ways: One as xenophobic, homogenous people who tend to overlook the fact something they do may come off as PC towards other races and Two, as people trying to be fashionably/interculturally in touch for various societal reasons. This would lend a hand in explaining why RE:5 could get green lit by a Japanese company, when an American company would open the game with Chris Redfield saying "I'm in a totally non-demoninational country with people speaking a language that can't be tied to any region and skin that's just BARELY off-white let's ROCK!"

The setting of RE5 looks, to me, to be genuinely terrifying. I applaud Capcom for setting the game in a society where the very idea of the zombie may have originated from. It's risky, but it's good. The people have dark skin, it's true. The teaser video linked to in that article isn't exactly flattering either, no. But it's good. RE5 looks horrific. I know as a charcter Chris will take NO pleasure in what he has to do to survive, and to prevent the spread of this epidemic to the rest of the world. But from the videos, pictures and the like...there's no way to tell unless you know the series at least a LITTLE. And sadly, a lot of powerful people don't.

The subtext of the RE5 screens is NOT the point. Someone with the eye of the politician and activist will see a militant white man killing evil black people, who are all evil because they are black. They overlook the story of the game, and sadly they always will. There's a politician right now INSISTING there's a rape scene in GTAIV that awards points. There is no such scene in GTAIV. The inhabitants of RE5 are not inherently evil. I don't know what parasite or virus is infecting them, but if it's anything like Las Plagas infected ganados from RE4, they're animated puppets with bugs in their brains from some evil corporation. Oh, and hardly anyone raised a tiff when Leon went to Spain to kill half the population. In the everlasting war against political incorrectness, don't pick your battles. If it messes with your race, make sure youre there when it messes with someone elses, or don't fight at all.

Moving on, the game took criticism for this portrayal, but did they change their tune? NOPE. Thank goodness. The game moves on, unhindered by the ranting and raving of an upset American audience. Some folks in Japan may have raised cain, but I think that when the game comes to Capcom USA, there maybe somes serious problems in store for the company, press wise. I'm not too worried about it, really. I think the initial issues will die down or float on by but there will the the one or two people who think the game needs banning/boycotting. I'm going to preorder a copy.

Breaking it down:

Should Capcom censor the game: No. There's nothing to censor.

Should they avoid this subject matter: No. The Resident Evil series has always been about the abuse of power, corruption of science and the manipulation through destruction of the HUMAN RACE.

Should America ban the game: Goodness no. If we ban this game, Saint's Row 2 better get cancelled and we better never see another GTA.

Should politicians and activists read and investigate before speaking thier mouths off: Yes. Or they risk looking like mis/uninformed idiots.

If I were to summarize the opinions of many, in a way I think is appropriate: Violence against one is unacceptable. Violence against many is equality. And that's ridiculous.

RE5 is the continuation of my 2nd favorite series in videogames. If I was a designer on the game, however, I would make sure during gameplay to let people see the other side of the coin BEFORE showing them the hell that Chris is descended into. Show them a village where there's life, love, happiness...or even one where there's paranoia, fear, panic...but make sure before we see the enemies as the monsters they become, we see them first as the humans they were.

-Joe

PS: Take a look at the new trailer. The people are portrayed as the monsters they've become, the abominations of Umbrella Corps. They've taken on a less human look, and as a result I think this magically makes everything okay. The magnificent double standard strikes again, I bet.

Sacrifice in Design

2008-06-19T18:47:00.003-05:00

You're a designer.
You make a list of kickin' rad game features.
You talk to the producers.
That list is cut in half.

Such is fate. But during my time working for a major company in Chicago, I was witness to the ongoing back and forth between a game's desired features and direction, and the time/money it would take to implement them. I was involved in only a few talks of design, and scolded for some, but all in all it boiled down to sacrifice. So as a designer, it comes down to this: What is the core of the game, what is the fluff? Cut the fluff, keep the core.

By all means it isn't a bad thing to want to have a plethora of features to a game. The scope can ramp up on you, higher and higher till suddenly you have programmers shaking their heads and producers tapping the calender where it's marked "ship date" and "final certification." A careful hand of balance will guide you through this time. Find out what's good, what will make it still have that touch it needs for the gamer to know it's a unique experience. No two games should ever be too alike, even in the case of sequels. Controls may stay the same, but the experience should change so the player has a reason to enjoy the game over the old one, while also appreciating and loading up the old one from time to time.

So when you're playing that game, and you think about all the great features in it, cry and lament that there were probably pages of pages of extra features that didn't make it, and pray for a sequel.

Video Games as Art...another know-it-all-blogger's opinion

2008-06-15T02:35:00.008-05:00

Writer Soo-Mahn wrote an article a little while back, that was much lauded and linked to about this topic. I loved the article, that cited Earthbound, Ico and Mario as good examples of games as art. He very effectively explained the transition a story has to make to become a compelling game, by giving players choices.

I want to forge my own path on this road. Here's my thesis:

Video Games, like all art forms, take a person with keen sense of vision, emotion, evocation and imagination to translate the written word or the formless thought into an enriching experience both engaging to the mind, and compelling.

Games have Designers for a reason. Designers are supposed to control and manipulate the game before the players eyes. They look at the situations in the game (any genre) from the eyes of the artist, and the eyes of the viewer. While some artists merely make art for themselves, a lot of artists take their audience into account when creating. They want to sell paintings. Designers are the same. They need to craft an experience that will hold people's attentions, draw them in and amuse their whimsy for at least a while. Whether the game is Shadow of the Colossus or Grand Theft Auto IV, two games from two entirely different ballparks. The Designer holds the brush, and with it they try their best to paint a picture worth seeing (More on Designers and sacrifice later...). I want to talk about the picture itself for a little.

The game as an artistic creation must be looked at from a few angles. The above article points out that a good game will typically offer the player choice. Instead of a movie/play/book where A always leads to B, in a game A could lead past B to C. The player will decide what goes. I think this is a great point, but there is so much more to a game as art. It can't just be left at that. Leaving it at that makes Choose-Your-Own-Adventure books art. Which some really are! But I digress. The look of a game, past it's actual game play flow, is essential to defining a game as an art form.

Take for example the Clover Studios creation Okami. Easily one of my top 5 video games. Beautifully made, amazing to play. Compelling story, sights, sounds...it's really a cream of the crop title. Is it art? Indubitably. The game from start to finish has the mark of the craftsman on it. The mark of an individual who knows the world through the eyes of the gamer, and knows how a game needs to look, as well as play. Every scene from Okami has care in its design. There isn't a single moment of that game that doesn't look like it could be taken aside to be a painting. The same goes for games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ninja Gaiden II in their own style. The hand of the artist is all over those games. The hand of the artist is imperative to anything being truly called art.

If I had designed Ninja Gaiden II, it would have been different in fundamental ways. Because I did not, and Itagaki did, it is an Itagaki. If I re-painted A Sunday Afternoon on the island of La Grand Jatte it would have been different, and not just because I'm bad at pointillism. In that sense, every game is an original work of art by the people who make it, who hopefully put care into people's perception of it.

Art is based off of experience, linear or not. The experience of seeing a beautiful painting by Jack Vettriano mimics the experience I get playing Okami when I've succeded in making the trees blossom, or in Grand Theft Auto IV when I witness Niko trying his damndest to succeed in a world ready to make him become the devil himself. Video Games give you the experience of experiencing, which may not make any damn sense at all. But if it does, I'd like to pretend it means that merely because you are there, making choices and participating, it'd be like walking among those people on La Grand Jette, talking and smiling and playing just as I do in my imagination every time I see it in person.

I hope more designers realize this, and take this into account. Games need to be an experience for the gamer, in a good way. Don't hold their hand, don't coddle them...but give them something that they can take away, and something to draw them back. All good art leaves a mark on the soul, and the medium of games should do no less.

So let's do this...PS3.

2008-06-14T03:01:00.003-05:00

((Foreward: I saw "Don't Mess With the Zohan" tonight. Dad, don't take Mom to see it. You'll love it. Love -Joe))

I said a year ago that when Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out, that will be the time to finally own a PS3. I think I am right. First off, I admit a bias. Metal Gear is my favorite series of games (just above Silent Hill and Resident Evil). I want the game quite badly. But time to put that aside. Here's my bullet points:

The library of the PS3 has grown enough to include some intriguing exclusives/incentives. Folklore, Motor Storm and some of the nicer looking games on the system like Burnout and the upcoming Final Fantasy titles need homes. As the library grows deeper, and the new games seem to have leveled out quality wise, it's safer to own one.
We all know HD-DVDs are extinct, so why not buy a $500 blu-ray player? Sure beats a $1000 one, especially considering that more and more people have or are getting high-defition televisions.
Home. Read my blog on it.
The Sony Effect. It's a term I made up for when a Sony system suddenly gains momentum and becomes a thing of joy. I feel that it is about to kick in with the PS3.

And so it is the eternal question: Do I save up money for a new computer (About $1300 for the one I want) or get a PS3?

Dragonball Z only seems to be picking up pace

2008-06-13T15:14:00.002-05:00

So I got my hands on DBZ: Burst Limit this week and it's a really good time...despite the fact I beat the story mode in about two days. I really appreciated Budokai Tenkaichi 3's longevity, and I think that with DLC this game will extend its lifetime alot.

That being said, I'm getting back into the show a lot more. I plan to get the remastered DVDs soon. I also need to save up for MGS4 and a PS3. Now is the time to own a PS3. Blog on that coming up tonight.