The other night, my sister-in-law and I took on (and almost beat) the Sega Genesis classic Streets of Rage. I've booted it up plenty of times before, playing a stage or two before getting bored with it. Sure, it has some great graphics, sound (particularly music), and controls, but it seemed pretty unremarkable otherwise.

Our trip through the Streets of Rage was my first experience playing it as a two-player game. Guess what? It's a completely different game. Whereas the single-player mode is a fairly-standard "line the guys up so that you don't get attacked from behind while you attack from the front" beat'em up, the two-player mode doesn't entirely play that way.

It's actually pretty easy with two to line up the enemies. Instead, it's about spacing between you and your partner. It is possible to accidentally attack your partner, so you must be careful to keep enough space between each other and to be careful when assisting. I can't count the number of times I was coming over to help with an enemy only for the attempt to end with fistful of fury aimed at my teammate. It's not extremely annoying because the penalty is a minor health hit, but it led to quite a few laughs.

The game already has a strong late 1980's / early 1990's urban action movie vibe, but the ability to team up for combo attacks allows players to pull off moves that fit in perfectly with that aesthetic. This too puts more focus on the spacing issue above (and creates more accidental hilarity when one player grabs another and hits the wrong button, causing not a cool combo move but a kick to the partner's face).

Streets of Rage isn't a perfect game, most notably in the way it indulges in beat'em up tropes like having to fight all the bosses again on the last level, but it is one of the rare cases of a game being subtly transformed into a much better one with the addition of an extra player.

And that's why it's good to be lazy.

That's not lazy in typical sense of not getting the job done. It's about reusing existing code to follow that classic mantra “don't repeat yourself.” It's about avoiding bloat and focusing on delivering the desired functionality (see this classic post). It's about looking for efficient shortcuts and taking advantage of them. That's the kind of lazy that most developers should find attractive.

This brings me to a recent find. There is a startup here in Seattle called Algorithmia. Their premise is that they are a marketplace for algorithms. Users pay money to call and use the algorithms on the company's servers and algorithm writers can make money by hosting them with Algorithmia.

The idea is particularly appealing when it comes to complex algorithms, such as language processing and image detection - the kind of algorithms that not every developer has the experience to implement and not every business has the money to pay someone to implement.

But what about trivial algorithms? The kind that any decent developer can look at and implement in a day or less?

There's actually a reason for buying algorithms even in this case. And this is based on a true story.

At work a few months back, I had to create a maze game that would be running live for a week or so. That meant I also had to create a maze generator. At first, I started coming up with my own algorithm. It was a fun puzzle to work on, but after an hour or so, I decided it was best to cheat and take a look at what other programmers and mathematicians have figured out. I found a solid algorithm, implemented it, and finished the game.

Looking back, it would have been great to have been able to find a maze generator on Algorithmia and use it instead. As a test, I built one in Python on the site. It is an implementation using Eller's Algorithm (http://www.neocomputer.org/projects/eller.html). It could certainly be optimized (there is actually a link on the algorithm page that describes a more efficient implementation), but I wanted to keep things simple.

To try it out, I built a small little HTML5 maze game (you can play it here). Every time it generates a maze, it makes a call to Algorithmia to make a maze using the algorithm I created on their servers.

Most developers (even myself) would question the value of seeking an outside implementation for such a straightfoward algorithm. But I did the math: if my game generates 100,000 mazes, I am out a grand total of about $10 USD. That's way less than the hourly going rate for a quality developer. Unless I'm expecting millions of players or have strong experience in maze generation algorithms, it's a better value to pay to use another developer's algorithm (and if the game became that popular, I could go back and write my own later).

See? It's good to be lazy.

If you want to play around with the maze (either to test out using Algorithmia or the maze front-end), you can get the source on GitHub here - be sure to put your API key in the getMaze.php file in the scripts folder. The details about the maze generation script (I've open-sourced it) can be found on this Algorithmia page.

Aesthetics can save an uninspired video game but don't always have the same effect for non-digital ones; the mechanics have to be at the fore and must be fresh and interesting. One can't just change the resource names in Catan and then start taking preorders.

Because of this, I find myself running into a brick wall much more quickly when prototyping physical games. Within minutes of playtesting, I can tell if a design is beyond saving. This has been happening much more frequently since I purchased some nice poker chips in an attempt to make the next Splendor (good luck to me on that one).

I have a prototype that I recently revisited and found that I'm much closer to something that is actually worth being playtested in the real world. That game is called Last Chance For Gas.

The genesis of the idea came from gas stations that are on opposite sides of the street. They always seem to be in a price war, daring the other to go lower. In my initial prototypes, I found that price wars alone are not interesting enough to make for satisfying gameplay. I did discover some fun in trying to provide enough amenities where the travler will pay extra for the experience - something that does happen in real life.

The real problem in these initial prototypes involved finding the right balance of strategy and randomness. At first, gas prices were completely random and changed every few turns. This made it hard to plan ahead and weigh the decision to buy supply ahead of time. I fixed this by incorporating a dice roll several turns ahead that indicated what the future price of fuel would be.

That wasn't the only issue with randomness. Another core mechanic of the game is that customers come to the stations with different preferences - some want a clean restroom, others want the cheapest fuel price, and so on. Initially, I made it almost completely random - one could use an action to look ahead at the next few customers to come by hiring a spotter, but that didn't make thematic sense and it still made the experience too random.

I realized that the game needed to just show more customers coming down the road with their preferences fully visible. But showing all the customers is too much - the game becomes too predictable.

At this point, I figured out not only a new mechanic but a theme that works to support it. Initially, I show quite a few customers to the player. But as each round progresses, fewer of them show up. This makes it harder to simply plan as the game continues. Thematically, these means that business is dwindling. And what famous event would have fewer cars visiting certain gas stations over time?

The demise of Route 66.

I immediately pivoted the game to feature this theme. Now players are running gas stations on Route 66, trying to save up for retirement as the traffic slowly dries up when the Interstates divert cars away from that historic route. Every round represents the passing of time. Customers become fewer and fewer until it is time to close the gas station and see which owner will have money for the best retirement.

Every turn, the player has several options to choose from, including purchasing fuel, cleaning the restrooms, or even training a mechanic. Players can also change the price of fuel and buy advertising (which works as a tie-breaker for customer who can't decide between stations offering similar amenities). All of these options have different effects: fuel price changes can make it easier to sell product but might cost the player in terms of profit. Training a mechanic can be expensive, but it's the only investment in the game that is permanent. And going for the cleanest restroom is cheap, but requires constant upkeep (essentially, the loss of actions for doing other improvements). The game plays out very tactically with each player having to decide which customers to go after while keeping aware of what their competitors are also trying to do.

While I remember it being not very fun, a recently solo playtest told me otherwise. I found stepping away from it for a few months helped me see there is some fun in the game in trying to outwit other players. The decisions weren't as obvious in my last playthrough - the core dilemas kept coming down to anticipating what the other players might do.

The game still suffers from one main issue: the endgame can come down to a random chance depending on which customers arrive. With only a few in the last round, someone can luck into enough business to put them over the top. It could also use a little more variety (not randomness, but a few more options or conditions each round to keep things fresh). If I can solve these two issues, I believe I might have something worth bringing to a game night for people to play.

If you are interested in trying the game out, shoot me an e-mail and I'll send the first draft of the rules. It requires several dice, a number of cubes or other markers, and some sort of currency (paper money, poker chips, etc.). The remaining components can be made with a pen, some index cards, and optionally some scissors.

And if you are in the Seattle area, bug me and I might just meet you and some buddies to try it out (and play some other games while we are at it).

But secretly, I'm just being modest - telecommuting IS better than going into an office everyday.

That's not to say there aren't some unique challenges (see, here I go again with the "it's not all great" routine). One issue of working in the office has a digital analog: interruptions.

In the physical office, there's always the enjoyable but distracting threat of having a visitor come by to talk shop or pick your brain to solve an issue. One might think this disappears in the digital office, but it doesn't.

The workstation visit has been replaced with instant messaging.

For years, I've preferred to use instant messaging whenever I needed an answer to a problem. E-mail seemed somewhat old-fashioned compared to getting an answer instantly. But late last year, I started thinking about what receiving an instant message does to my workflow. I can't count the number of times I've lost my focus because I had to stop and answer a non-urgent issue via instant message. Yes, an instant message helps bring an issue to someone's attention as a priority, but it is easy to forget there is another person on the other end that is likely busy with a task. And that message just broke that person's concentration.

I've started to question what messages and requests are a priority and which ones aren't. And I came to realize that all but a handful of them were things I needed soon, but not now. It turns out I was a serial interrupter. Guilty as charged.

So I've resolved to start using e-mail (and project management tools like Asana and Polaris, which notify via e-mail) more to request information and feedback from co-workers. I only send an instant message when I need to accomplish something as soon as possible and someone has the information that is a roadblock (for instance, when there a bug that is live and I am ready to fix it, but I need to run my change by with another developer to make sure that won't break their code).

By doing this, I respect my co-workers workflow. The only downside is that this prevents those natural "shop" conversations from occurring - conversations that, when nothing is urgent, can be helpful and create a better team. There are ways around this - such as moving side conversations to real-time but not "in your face" services like HipChat and Slack. And of course, having opportunities to convene in person provide this as well. But overall, it's a trade-off that's worth having to keep productivity up.

Now if only my dog would learn to use e-mail when he wants my attention...

Since Unity re-compiles every time code changes, clicking back into the Unity Editor after making code changes in an external editor like MonoDevelop reuslts in a short pause.

A good IDE should let the programmer know that it is compiling - why Unity left this feature out, I don't know. Granted, if there is an error or warning in the code, then yes, Unity will immediately let the coder know. It reminds me of the old jokes in those DOS days about why the prompt never compliments "Good command or file name" but loves to repramand "Bad command or file name" when the user gets it wrong. But I digress...

Luckily, the Unity Editor is very customizable. I wrote my only solution to this issue: the Compile Status window.

The window looks like this:

And the code goes a little something like this:

using UnityEngine;
using UnityEditor;

public class CompileStatusWindow:EditorWindow
{   
    [MenuItem ("Window/Compile Status")]

    public static void ShowWindow()
    {
        EditorWindow.GetWindow(typeof(CompileStatusWindow), false, "Compile Status");
    }

    void OnGUI()
    {
        GUIStyle headerStyle = new GUIStyle();
        headerStyle.fontStyle = FontStyle.Bold;
        headerStyle.fontSize = 24;

        string statusText;
        if ( EditorApplication.isCompiling )
        {
            headerStyle.normal.textColor = Color.red;
            statusText = "Working...";
        }
        else
        {
            headerStyle.normal.textColor = Color.black;
            statusText = "Finished";
        }

        EditorGUILayout.LabelField(statusText, headerStyle);

        Repaint();
    }
}

The secret sauce is checking EditorApplication.isCompiling and constantly redrawing the window via the Repaint function. There is probably a better way to ensure the status update occurs without constantly redrawing, but it was the only way I found I could ensure that I am getting the latest status.

It's not a perfect solution as it malfunctions for me maybe once every 8 to 10 hours, but it is fixed by simply closing and re-opening the window. And it's worth it to prevent me from playing the guessing game every time I switch back to the Unity editor after making code changes.

The problem from the developer point-of-view is the part where the variable is declared public. When first learning to write code, the whole concept of public and private modifiers seems silly. That quickly changes once a developer starts stepping into larger projects and working in teams. If another part of the software doesn't need access to certain information in the current code, then it doesn't need to know what's under the hood (and shouldn't be tempted to muck about with that code and cause new problems).

So when Unity says, “I'm gonna need you to make this variable public so I can access it from the Inspector,” my heart skips a beat. As a game developer, though, this sort of quietly ignoring best practices is nothing new. When I first started learning ActionScript 2 in Flash, I remember one of my coworkers (and former classmate at university) telling me to forget such niceties strictly-typing variables. And he was right – ActionScript 3 made things a bit more formal, but ActionScript 2 was a wild west of best practices. In some ways, it ended up being fast and fun - but it also made it a difficult language to troubleshoot.

And here I am again, staring down Unity with its insistence of making a variable public in order to take advantage of one of its great features. I spent a good chunk of this past weekend (that I intended to spend actually working on my prototype) trying to decide how to approach this issue.

The real conundrum of this requirement is what to do with variables that are constants and shouldn't be changed during gameplay by code or the Unity inspector, but should be available for quick changing in both before testing. With Flash, I was used to simply updating my constants and republishing to try out new values. While it doesn't take too much longer to test out changes to a Unity game, the pre-built support for editing values on the fly is too strong for me to ignore.

I tried a myriad of solutions based on research I found online. The strongest contender was to make a private variable, make it serialized through an attribute, and then create a property (written in ALL CAPS) with a get that returns the private variable. Combine that with a custom inspector that only shows the property there if the game isn't running and custom functions and inspector buttons to reset inspector changes to a hard-coded value set in the code and I almost had the winning solution. It took a few lines of code to implement for every new variable, but it was worth the overhead (and I could always write a code generator in, say, JavaScript and have it handy for creating all the code I would need).

But the major problem with this solution is that, inside the class, I still didn't have that constant-like functionality. The variable may appear to be a constant to outside classes, but I could easily accidentally edit the value of the private variable without knowing it.

For now, I've decided to roll with Unity and make these variables public. The only part of this weekend's experiment I'm keeping for now is the code (including custom editor functionality) to reset values in the inspector to hard-coded ones in the code in case the new values I experiment with get me nowhere.

There are two reasons I'm going to try out this philosophy.

The first reason has to do with Unity's way of structuring things. Unity is really set up to take advantage of an entity component system approach. This means writing pieces of code that focus on doing one thing - not the standard code on an object that handles everything. The hope is that these scripts aren't talking to each other constantly, but are instead of getting just barely what information they need from each. For instance, my script controlling the volume of a GameObject's AudioSource needs to know from the movement class what percent of the maximum speed the player is traveling, so it asks for that - but it doesn't ask for the current speed, the direction it is heading, etc.

The other reason is that games are constantly in flux. It's one of the things that makes game development different from other types of development. Creating some sort of fancy solution to properly hide data is great, but not if it needs to be torn down and rebuilt as something new. In my prototype, I was trying to treat maximum speed as a constant. At some point, I realized I might want to add speed upgrades, meaning that maximum speed no longer needs to be a constant. That would all be much easier if could just do a find and replace on my public maximum speed variable to turn it into a current maximum speed variable. With my “great” solution to this problem, I'd constantly have to recode parts of my class and editor customizations to change this fucntionality.

So I'll try the easier, less sophisticated, riskier way of doing things and see how this works out. It helped me do some incredible things in Flash, so I'm hoping it will do the same for me in Unity.

While not nearly as enduring as either of those examples, the simple story and fun characters made my recent trip through the campaign mode bearable. I say bearable because it shocked me just how boring much of the gameplay was. There are really two redeeming features of the actual gameplay. The first is the destructibility of the environments courtesy of DICE's then brand-new Frostbyte engine. It was so satisfying to see a building with an enemy solider and to shoot down a wall in order to blow their cover. It reminded me of my days playing Duke Nukem 3D, all giddy because those static world elements that I couldn't destroy in other games were alive and ready to be decimated. The interesting gameplay element is that the developers allowed some freedom on the linear mission paths to approach objectives from any angle or to bypass them altogether.

That, however, was also one of my issues with the game. Since I didn't care about the gun and gold "collectibles," I was simply able to walk the long way around at least half of the game's encounters. It makes one feel clever, but like using warp zones to speed to the end of a Super Mario Bros. game, it doesn't leave one feeling extremely accomplished.

The biggest issue I had with the game was just how simple the mission objectives are. Almost every objective is either "go to this spot" or "blow these things up," with very little variety (save for one level that involves a piloting a helicopter). Most of the game's variety is entirely dependent upon the weapons provided, which are fun but not enough to sustain interest.

Battlefield: Bad Company came out in 2008 and (as I remember) was excellent for its time. But while the difference in technology from then to today isn't overly impressive (at least to this developer), what is amazing is just how far we've come in terms of game design in a little over five years. While the last few generations of consoles and PC hardware have demonstrated leaps and bounds in the tech side of video games, it's the comparison of last-gen games like Battlefield: Bad Company to some of the designs being created today that provide evidence that it is game design's time to make those leaps and bounds.

Looking back over my first time at PAX, I'm left with the following takeaways. And my apologies for repeating things I've already said in previous posts.

The highlight of the conference would have been a rather low-key moment for most: the opportunity to play King of New York about a month before it will hit most store shelves. It adds just enough complexity for me to likely pull the trigger on a purchase when it starts going on sell (it doesn't hurt that my wife enjoyed King of Tokyo - which means King of New York would hit the table at home).

The biggest disappointment of the conference was the You Don't Know Jack tournament that was poorly run (especially compared to the tabletop tournaments which were structured in a much more schedule-friendly way).

The biggest shock of the conference was that I played a whopping total of three video games the entire time: a game of Burger Time in the classic arcade, my You Don't Know Jack tournament game, and the Oculus Rift VR game demo. Sorry, I'm not waiting in line to play a game I can check out in a few months.

If I had the patience and tolerance for the expo hall, there a few games I would have liked to play: Insomiac's Sunset Overdrive, Behemoth's Game 4, Chris Hecker's SpyParty, Turtle Rock's Evolve, and pretty much every indie game (which I'll probably buy when they come out on Steam) and indie tabletop game (which I'll definitely seek out when and if they get published). I also wouldn't have minded checking out the newer Oculus Rift hardware, but I'm fine with at least seeing whether or not the tech lives up to the hype (again, that's another blog post).

The most frustrating part of PAX: tabletop freeplay. It was very difficult to organize and find games for several reasons:

• The suggested method (the “#ttlfg” hashtag on Twitter) didn't work well because so few people were using it (there were probably less than a dozen uses of the hashtag daily). This could have been fixed very easily with a central (physical) board where people could post interest in playing certain games (and leave a form of contact info) or by having signs where players can indicate that they are looking for players or teachers for certain games. While I heard one could just hang around tabletop library to find players... thhhat brings me to my next point...

• The Motif was a great space for freeplay, but was several blocks away from the belly of the convention center where a small freeplay area and (more importantly) the tabletop library was located. I saw people playing tabletop games on the floor throughout the conference center. I'm spoiled - I live in a city where there are plenty of places I can go to play games on large tables and enjoy a beer or coffee while I play, so I'm not playing on the floor of a convention center. Having all the tabletop activity in one space would have increased the odds of finding and organizing game.

• I saw very few new games that I was interested in playing actively hitting the table... just a few like Galaxy Trucker that I have played a few times and would gladly play again. I saw almost no Euros or party games. The games I saw mostly consisted of highly thematic games, games involving lots of miniatures, and classics like Dominion and 7 Wonders that I enjoy, but play all the time. The last time I went to a tabletop convention, I played almost entirely new, interesting games for three days.

• I may be completely wrong, but it seemed like a lot of people already had their groups formed. I saw a lot of people walking to the Motif with games and a group in tow. I saw very few groups sitting around, waiting to get started. There's quite a bit to do at PAX, so I imagine most groups played what they wanted to played and then returned to other parts of the conference.

As I previously said, I'm spoiled to live in a city full of bars, cafes, and coffee shops dedicated to selling board games and providing a space to play them. If I lived in a small town or wasn't someone who has played quite a few board games over the last few years, I'm sure I would have enjoyed that aspect of PAX more.

Overall, I'm glad I went and I enjoyed myself for the most part - but I don't think I'll be going back to PAX unless I'm there in some sort of volunteering or exhibitor role. I'm not really a member of PAX's target audience anymore - I don't live and breathe for the latest and greatest releases and I'm not craving a community with which I can play games. I have a backlog of video games at home and a nice network of friends, groups, and places where I can play games. I don't need the sensory overload that is PAX when I can enjoy games every day and by my own schedule.

The day started with one final visit to the tabletop tournament room that had basically been my home away from home during PAX. I signed up for the Sushi Go! tournament and passed the time by teaching my wife (who joined me today) how to play King of Tokyo. After a few games of that, I settled into the Sushi Go! tournament - which was sadly only four players. It made for what was likely the quickest tournament at PAX, lasting about ten minutes. I came in third thanks to some dumb plays and dumb luck.

We then took a tour of the expo hall. The only major stop we made was at the Lake Washington Institute of Technology booth. One of the instructors had a game that used the first-gen Oculus Rift. With a line of less than ten minutes, I was willing to wait for that demo. The verdict? That's another blog post, but let's say that I like what I see but I don't necessarily see it as the “future of games” but more a fun platform.

After a stroll around the expo hall, a peak at the classic console room, and a quick visit for some Burger Time at the on-site arcade, I headed to play in the You Don't Know Jack console tournament. Sadly, this was one of the more disappointing experiences at PAX. Unlike the tabletop tournaments, which scheduled heats at different times, all entrants signed up for one time and they made the tournament match schedule then and there. And with only four stations in use and nearly 64 players, I had to wait an hour to play my game without any indication of when I would be going to play (so I couldn't leave and come back). The first round had the top two of three or four advance - except my game. Because one of my match's players had left, there were two of us and no alternates. So the director told us only one would advance. In spite of my solid $9,500 score (I saw players advancing with much less), I got knocked out. Even worse - he announced my name for the match that followed mine, meaning I had been counted twice and he could have simply sent the two of us to two different three-player games. So in the course of almost 90 minutes, I got to play one game with another player... and that's it. If the other tournaments were ran like that, I'm glad I only entered one of them.

We made one last trip through the expo hall to see if any board game dealers where marking anything else down at the last minute, but (pardon the pun) no dice. As a result, we called it a day and headed home. Overall, I can't say that I enjoyed the final day of PAX as much as some of the other days. But I'll save any further thoughts until another blog post.

After stopping by the tabletop tournament room to sign up for a couple of tournaments, I went to the expo hall to explore. It's a bit too loud and crowded for me to really enjoy. I'm not a huge fan of waiting in line for something I can eventually just pay to do at home in a few months. And because it is so loud, it is hard to have conversations with the folks manning the booths.

In my quick walk-around, I did see some very interesting and odd things:

• Mayfair Games' (the company that publishes Settlers of Catan) booth had lots of folks demoing games... I may try to take advantage of that tomorrow.

• Lichdom Battlemage had a huge line with people waiting to get their photo taken of harnessing magic fireballs (I thinkk). I only mention this because I met some of the people who worked for Xaviant 7 years ago at GDC. It's interesting to see them with a huge booth at PAX, especially when I knew them when they couldn't even disclose details about their current project (which I don't think was Lichdom).

• There was some sort of oversized-costume wrestling going on at the Ubisoft booth for (I think) Far Cry 4. Well, I guess the PR strategy works - I'm writing about it.

• Tons of developers had their games in fake arcade cabinets and many companies had "pose for photo" opportuinites like Lichdom did. So much for standing out.

• The new shooter Evolve had an interesting LAN area with commentators talking about the game while gamers tried it out. It seemed like an area that might have just been fun to stand and watch.

I'm sure I'm forgetting some things I saw, but needless to say there is quite a bit going on in the expo hall - one crowded, dark, and noisy expo hall.

I stopped by the classic game room and it was pretty dead (my later visit was the opposite, with tons of classic games being played). One of today's challenges was to simply beat E.T. for the Atari 2600 (as of about 5 PM Sunday, only one person had managed to do it).

I headed back to the tabletop tourney room. I won my heat of 7 Wonders and got outplayed in my Dominion qualifier (I had the same strategy, but the winner executed it better). After the longest lunch break I've taken during PAX, I returned to finish fourth in my 7 Wonders semi-final game (sometimes one doesn't get the right cards - this was such a game).

I tried to organize some tabletop gaming on Twitter to no avail and the tournament room had returned its copies of Power Grid, meaning I couldn't do an on-demand tournament. So I walked around the tabletop areas, talking to some players and Enforcers. I stopped to help a group of first-timers learn 7 Wonders and looked over the manual and pieces for Istanbul (which, unfortunately, nobody was terribly interested in trying out). Also shocking - King of New York was sitting in the demo area with no players. Take that game to any board game convention and there'd be a line to play it.

Before departing for the day, I went back up to the sixth floor of the convention center. While in the expo hall, I stopped by the Council of Verona booth (they were out of the Poison Expansion, which I would have picked up if they weren't already sold out of them). I also ran by the Four-Sided Fantasy booth to congratulate the game's developer on the successful Kickstarter. On my way out, I quickly ran into the FFG room to see the X-Com game. I didn't get to see the part of the game that used the tablet, but the game looked very much like Eldritch Horror. I'd be interested in giving it a go when it is released, but it doesn't seem like the kind of game that I'd run out and buy day one.

There were also lots of people playing games on the floor of the convention center as all the freeplay rooms were filled to capactiy. Perhaps this will encourage the oragnizers to move all the tabletop gaming to one location (there was plenty of space in the Motif, even as things have picked up over the weekend).

And that was it for day three. Day four will also be another short one (since everything shuts down around 6 PM), but I hope to spend a bit more time in the expo hall. I will likely play at least one more tournament (Sushi Go!) as well.

See you all at day four!

I spent the entire day in the tabletop tournament room. I signed up for the King of Tokyo tournament and played a few warm-up games. I was knocked out in strange game where five of the six players stayed alive - an unusual circumstance for that game.

As I prepared to play a warm-up game of for the Ascenion tournament, the folks I was playing with decided to sign up to play in the second heat of the King of Tokyo tournament. I decided to join and managed to win that game - an exciting victory where all the last remaining player needed was to roll a 2 using 3 dice to win - and ultimately failed.

The fun part: the finals were played with the brand new, not-yet-in-stores King of New York. As an Enforcer said, it was like that scene in The Wizard when Super Mario Bros. 3 was revealed (except without the crowd). I had 18 of the 20 points needed to win without anyone close behind, but one player managed to knock myself and two others out by causing a loss of 50% of the starting health. While that (and the time it took to read over the rules to this new version) was a bit annoying, it was still fun and a highlight of the day.

I played in the Ascension tournament next, acquitting myself (who can count on my fingers the number of games of Ascension I've played) by managing to finish only a few points behind a seasoned verteran and doing considerably better than a couple of players who had been playing the game for a few months.

I followed that up with a game of Cosmic Encounter with my friend Rob and three new people he managed to round up. We were gunning for an unofficial tournament or expert-level game, but we still had a blast. Even though I played one of my personal worst games of Cosmic Encounter ever, it was still a riot (especially the reactions new players had backstabbing and lying occurred).

At this point, I was exhausted and ran home to take a nap to get ready for the Saturday Night Showdown. This was probably the only mistake of the day I made. I was eyeballing a video game music trivia game and an NBA Jam tournament, but when it was pitched as a mix of party games like Dixit, dexterity games like Flowerfall, and nostalgic games like Crossfire, I had to give it it a go. Instead, it was all filler games, ranging from the good (Sushi Go!) to the tired (Love Letter) to the overly simple (Let It Roll!) to the odd and awkward (Goblins Drool, Fairies Rule!). I enjoyed talking and playing with the other competitors, but the game selection was not great - of these games, only Sushi Go! had any semblance of strategic or social gameplay (Love Letter lost what little it had by only cutting the game length in half). The final game (played by the top two winners) was some sort of wooden, abstract game - not exactly like Crossfire. I left during the finals to call it a night, somewhat kicking myself for not leaving the tabletop tournament hall during the day.

So that's day two. Day three will probably have a couple more tabletop tournaments for me (7 Wonders, Dominion, and maybe even an "on-demand" Power Grid tournament if I can find interest). I might check out a panel or two, possibly play in a console tournament (Blur, a game I loved and was shocked to see on the schedule), and maybe actually tour the expo hall. To day three!

I didn't find out until earlier this week that I was even going to PAX. My plan to use IFTTT to acquire tickets failed as even it wasn't fast enough to notify me before they sold out. I had resigned myself to missing out yet again - just as if I was living on the other side of the country, too far to make the trip. Fortunately, a friend came through for me and was able to find me a 4-day pass. I was initially excited but then overwhelmed - so much to do but so little time!

For Friday, I mainly stuck to panels plus getting the lay of the land. I only barely stuck my head into the expo hall in the afternoon - while the expo hall is a highlight for many, it's not where I plan on spending much of my PAX time. It's crowded, noisy, and full of games I'm not terribly in a rush to play. I will, however, find some time to do a quick browse around and will definitely spend some time at the indie booths.

I also figured out where all the tabletop events were happening (which is likely where I'll spend most of my time). I was initially confused thinking everything tabletop was happening at the Motif Hotel (formerly the Red Lion), but that's only the tournaments. The freeplay and game library is in the convention center. While I appreciate the exposure that comes with having space in the convention center, I wished they had moved the library over to the Motif - the tournament rooms had plenty of open tables and were very quiet, unlike the crowded convention center rooms with doors facing the busy goings on outside.

The game library itself has a few interesting titles, including newer ones like Istanbul and Subdivision and some longer games like Eclipse and Twilight Imperium that one doesn't always see in game libraries. The library didn't completely blow me away - I'm really spoiled to be living in Seattle with game cafes that have libraries that rival what PAX has at least in terms of quality, but that doesn't change the fact that I plan on taking advantage of this PAX feature over the weekend.

I'm not in to collecting "stuff," so I didn't worry about picking up a swag bag at the Paramount. I'm hearing that it is mostly ads with a couple of beta codes included - sounds completely skippable to me.

As mentioned, Friday was all about panels. The ones I most wanted to see were on day one, so that's where I spent my time. The only downside is that I missed out on a couple of tabletop tournaments: Dominion (which I plan on giving a go Sunday) and Power Grid (which was a really hard decision to skip, especially since that's the only one they are holding for it - and I love me some Power Grid, especially in a game with veteran players).

When I arrived downtown at about 11 AM, I went immediately to my first panel of the day: "Building Inclusive Communities in Analog Spaces." As someone who runs a meetup gaming group and assists with another, I was happy to come away with a few ideas (such as communicating the group's code of conduct immediately to new members) and a few new fun terms (such as "mansplaining" - when a man feels compelled to use his "gender-provided expertise" to belittle a woman's thoughts on a subject). I also ran in to my friend Rob at the panel - we are scheming on starting an unofficial Cosmic Encounter tournament or at least expert-level game at some point during the weekend.

Next up, I went to "Gaming Your Career: Manage Your Career in the Game Industry." As a non-entry level game developer, this was extremely relevant to me as it covered not the typical "how do I get into the game industry" topic that is so popular at conventions (especially ones aimed at consumers rather than developers) but "how to move on in a career once your foot is in the door." The most intriguing takeaway is that it's different for everyone and the result is everyone will have a different opinion. For instance, some panelists said "dress to impress" is important while others said "dress to company culture" was better advice. The most useful kinds of advice were actually applicable to many careers (and were less debated)... nuggets such as: be willing to do any task, don't be a pessimist, and don't be too humble (take credit for your role in the team's accomplishments, but not all the credit). It was a panel that may not have had all the answers about career-related decisions, but certainly provided food for thought.

The next panel I attended was "PopCap - How We Make Games." While there was an interesting section talking about the use of dynamic audio in Peggle, the main part of this talk that stood out (which was fairly amusing overall) was PopCap Labs - the company's internal prototyping teams that each consist of a developer and an artist cranking out prototypes in three weeks. They showed some posters for failed game ideas that look exactly like games PopCap would make. It definitely sounded like the most exciting part of PopCap to be involved with - and as someone who currently works with an artist to deliver smaller games with a quick turn-around time, it struck a chord with me. One lucky attendee got a PS4 (spoiler alert: not me). The rest of us got Plants Versus Zombies headphones as a consolation prize. While waiting in line, I won some Magic promo cards for knowing where PAX South is going to be held (more line trivia please, Enforcers).

After taking a break to explore, get dinner, and secure a pass for the evening for the wife, I headed over to the only really big panel I currently plan on attending during PAX: the Angry Video Game Nerd movie screening. Amazingly, the line started 90 minutes before showtime and filled to capacity over 30 minutes before it started. And unlike the other panel lines of the day, we all had to stand in a crowded area to queue up for the show.

Was it worth it? I'd say yes. It was fun getting to see the nerd himself, James Rolfe, live. The movie itself wasn't quite what I was expecting. It's definitely going after that B-movie vibe and features some laugh-out loud moments as well as fun references (fans of Smash TV should appreciate film's antagonist), but it also features some uneven moments as well as few sophomoric jokes that fall flat. But anyone who is a fan of the nerd (like the wife and I) should appreciate it and check it out when it gets released digitally in a few days. And I won't spoil the ending, but fans of the Nerd should appreciate the gift given in the closing moments of the film.

So that's my first-ever day at PAX. I had a good time, but I now look forward to a couple of days of playing in tournaments, exploring around, and not waiting in lines to sit and listen to people - it's time to see what else PAX can offer.

The basic idea is to take the classic arcade game Joust, with all of its ostrich-riding and lancing action, put a bunch of balls on the screen, and fly into said balls to bump them into the goal. The controls and gameplay are much faster than the precising timing featured in Joust. It's also much more chaotic, with a high-energy “sorta retro” graphics and a fairly-small play field. It was sensory overload, the sport - which is great because I like sports and sensory overloads.

I played a couple of rounds with a random attendee on my team and we killed it, going two-for-two (or I should say he killed it - I was pretty terrible at the game). My only real issue with the game (which the developer, Auston Montville, already knew about) was that it is very difficult to keep track of the player with so much going on and a teammate with a similar look and color already on the screen. Once that is fixed, there will be nothing left to complain about - other than the fact that the target platform is a system I currently don't own, the Wii U. Hopefully there is enough interest in a Steam port or I end up picking up a Wii U by the time this game flies into gamers' hands - because this looks like a fantastic game for inviting over a couchful of friends for what is obviously going to be, as its website puts it, “The National Sport of The Internet.”

I only played one quick game, but I was immediately hooked and would have played more if I still enjoyed hogging a demo station like I did at Wal-Mart when I was eight years old. The game is pretty simple: up to four players run around a curved map attempting to hack and slash each other. Two additional mechanics make things more interesting. First, each player has a projecile (mine was a pair of scissors) that can be thrown as an attack. But more importantly, players can reverse the gravity at any position with a button press, resulting in death from above... or below... or from the side... to an unsuspecting player.

The art is on point, but the controls really sealed the deal. I can't actually remember how running around curved surfaces was implemented, but I do not recall having any issues getting around the play field - that's a good sign.

The whole experience reminded me of some game I've played that I can't remember. The closest game I could think of is Blast Chamber, an old PlayStation game that allowed players to rotate the field of play while competing in a game of hot potato with a bomb.

Is it possible that I'll wake up in the middle of the night, realize that Paperbound is a copy of a game I've already played at some point, and start trolling the Steam forums with comments that it is a rip-off? Well, never say never I suppose. But until then, I have nothing but praise for this slick, stylish, fast-paced game that I look forward to adding to my Steam library. Paperbound is currently up on Steam Greenlight, so go vote for it so my friends and I can go running with scissors from the safety of our own homes.

As I approached the table in a somewhat out-of-the-way area (hiding in a sea of dining tables, next to the elevator), there weren't any fancy displays - just a small sign, a few business cards, and laptop with a controller connected to it. After waiting for the last visitor to finish his game, the developer, Logan Fieth, simply handed me a controller without too much explanation.

I started working my way to the right in typical platformer fashion. After a screen or two, he explained that I could now "lock" the screen at any time and wrap around it - in other words, I could change the game so that walking off-the-screen to the right puts my character back on the left side of the screen while falling in a pit would actually shoot me back into the screen from the top of it.

Of all the games I played at iFest, this is the most innovative one I encountered. While the developer has apparently used this mechanic in a previous game, it was certainly fresh to me. Most of the games I played at iFest were solid entries into their respective genres or mash-ups of existing games. This was the single most interesting game mechanic I experienced at the expo - one that was good enough to for me to back the game's Kickstarter, something I don't often do.

Given that the game is still more in the prototype phase, I won't criticize the one major flaw I encountered: teaching new uses of the mechanic. There were a couple of occasions where I got stuck and had to ask for hints. The game will have to do a better job of easing the player in to some of its puzzles. Otherwise, it could be really easy to get hit a brick wall. But I am sure that is a concern that will be addressed later in development.

I see quite a bit of potential in this game. The aesthetics reminded me of a less cynical, more dreamlike spin on Braid (I especially like the pixelation effect used when the screen is locked). I talked with the developer and he had some good ideas about how to modify the game mechanic to keep it fresh. For fans of puzzle-platformers, backing this Kickstarter is a no-brainer.