Well, I’ve been sold on the Lego games now - Lego Batman is fun, and you can pick it up instantly. It’s a game of choice to bring out when friends come over, no matter how new to gaming they are. It’s also polished, with the details on the various characters giving them a greater acting ability than many of the actors who have played them over the years.

One thing that struck me was how non-linear the storyline was - you can more or less mix the missions up into any order and switch between the good guys and bad guys, and still make sense of the overarching plot. Not bad for a game with no dialogue!

There’s nothing that innovative about the way the levels themselves play out - a mix of platforming-action and puzzle solving - but it’s done well, and nothing jars or annoys you. In short, I really like this game.

Lego Batman is a prime example of a comfortable, middle-of-the-road game that accomplishes exactly what it sets out to do. It’s unique style and lack of dialogue forced it to up the ante as far as animating the characters went, and that paid off. Although not particularly challenging, it’s definitely entertaining.

Like most entertainment, video games are defined by a duality of purpose. On the one hand, they are a hobby, an amusement, escapism, for most people a fairly casual de-stressing activity after a stressful day. On the other hand, they represent interactive imagination - a story telling medium capable of causing us to transcend our limited experience, designed to share emotions, ideas, a culture.

They are, in short, both a reflection of reality, and an escape from it. These apparent contradictions make for some interesting results. We play games that make us angry and frustrated, because of the resulting high when we finally conquer a level or a stumbling block. We play games that explore violence and conflict, yet are able to maintain a distance from the carnage that allows us to focus on strategy and score. We play games that present us with moral dilemmas, and out of a sense of completion, we play both pathways. We are inside the game, a part of it, creating consequences. We are outside the game, viewing and considering it.

Being evil is fun. This is why griefers and loot ninjas exist. It’s why games like Overlord are so popular, and why so many people go on murderous rampages in Grand Theft Auto. The attraction of evil - of being able to take what you want, when you want, without social consequences - is immense. Video games confront that head on. Evil is fun. Period.

Sadness, regret and guilt are not fun. When people generate virtual communities, they also generate social consequence. Raid groups, RPG groups, PVP groups, clans, guilds and the friends who regularly play Rock Band together. Suddenly you’ve got a political environment, with real people whose egos can be bruised, whose esteem can be shattered, who can dominate or submit.

Equally, story telling games can create characters that we identify with, and whom we become emotionally invested in. We may discover ourselves simply unable to kill the crying, helpless child. We may be appalled by the sudden murder of our favourite NPC. We may find ourselves drawing uncomfortable parallels with our own lives, and our own culture.

A good video game can exploit this tension. Logically, the best move in a video game is the one that results in the biggest rewards - the most experience points, the largest amount of gold, the best upgraded weapons. Providing a social consequence to those moves creates a conflict in the player, far more so than simply rewarding ‘good’ behaviour with the points and gold. Does crime pay? You can become the king-pin, wildly rich, and yet unable to ever have an honest, fulfilled relationship. Is that ‘winning’?

Then, one fine day, my parents upgraded. I had a PC. And the first game I played on that PC was Final Fantasy 7. A new love of gaming was born on that day.

The Final Fantasy series is the poster child for Japanese RPGs. Depending on how old you are, and which game you played first, you’ll have a different fave and a different relationship with each game. What Final Fantasy managed to achieve, however, was to continuously hook new generations with each game. Ask the question “Which Final Fantasy is the best?” and you will get someone arguing for every single one - with the possible exception of X-2 (and I’m sure there is someone, somewhere).

The enduring appeal of the series is shown also in the number of re-makes. Older Final Fantasies are made-over for the PSP and the DS, and characters from each game make cameo appearances in other games. Nobody liked the idea of Kingdom Hearts - but everyone liked the game.

Now, twenty years after the birth of the Final Fantasy, comes the next installment - Dissidia. Featuring characters from each installment, and using the same basic good-v-evil premise it has always run with, Dissidia immediately shot up the best-selling lists in Japan, and will no doubt do the same once released in North America and Europe.

The real question is - how did Final Fantasy become so enduring? How did each installment manage to reinforce the brand as opposed to reduce it to ‘just another sequel’?

Mythology

Rather than create a unified world, and an ongoing storyline, the Final Fantasy series revolves around a mythology. Each world is different, and has room to be unique and explore different ideas, yet each world is linked through chocobo, mogs, a cast of supernatural beings, and forms of magic. By not trapping themselves into a purist fantasy world, or a specific steampunk world, by allowing themselves to develop different cities, lands, races, social systems, characters and visual styles Squaresoft were able to evolve and develop the series. The Final Fantasy brand covers everything from Tactics to Spirits Within to Kingdom Hearts to FF12.

In short, by understanding that mythology and themes last, and individual characters don’t, Squaresoft allowed the series to endure.

Story, Music & Art

Squaresoft understood that to make a brand appeal, it had to have more than just gameplay. By investing in some truly great artists, composers and writers, they were able to produce games that resonated with people. Final Fantasy games have an emotional impact, and the reason they have that impact is because of that combination of story, music and art. We are far more likely to remember and stay loyal to a media that involves us emotionally. Every detail counts - from your characters unique walk, to the bombastic music that rouses us to action.

Time Investment

I’m a big fan of the short game. I love quick but unique games, and games that express a single idea extremely well. When creating a series that will last however, time investment matters. Each game in the Final Fantasy series last for hundreds of hours. Once a person has committed that amount of time to a game, it becomes a habit. The more attention we pay to something, the more attention we are likely to pay to it. Final Fantasy becomes a fandom, a lifestyle. When not playing the games, fanfiction is written and fan art produced.

Now if you’ll excuse me - I’m going back to my copy of Final Fantasy 3.

Designers in many fields, not just games, often think in terms of negatives (subtracting things) rather than positives (adding things). Design is creating a form (a game in our case) that fits a context.

An excellent article on subtractive design posted at sirlin.net. I highly recommend it.

As an indie developer, you don’t get millions. Nontheless, many indies seek to emulate these games. They want to out-wow the wow-factor games.

Then they don’t, because it’s impossible to produce a game like that without the money to pull it off. Instead they produce a weak imitation, a generic game that is merely mediocre.

In doing so, they short-change themselves in the areas where indies are at an advantage. Risky, niche-interest games that big studios cannot produce because they would never make their money back. Creative dialogue. Finding a selling point that does not revolve around graphical prowess or hour-devouring levels. Indie games should not compete in the area where they cannot win. Instead, they should do what they do best - by being different and interesting.

1. Recreating Reality

In other words, creating the most realistic simulation of an activity (whether playing golf, playing guitar, or shooting zombies) possible given technological limitations.

2. Telling a Story

Does your game have involving, engaging characters that explore the world, and grow, learn and change as they progress?

3. Challenge the Player

Does it feature puzzles, does it appeal to logic rather than sentiment? Is there a maze, a crossword, a sequence of coloured blocks that must be reassembled?

Some games successfully blend two of the above aims together, to create a realistic simulation that also contains a great story, or a story based game that contains plenty of challenging puzzles. Perhaps a rare few even combine all three. But most will weigh heavily towards one. Most puzzles in RPG’s are limp mimics of their true puzzler brethren. Most realistic simulators contains stories that are at best hackneyed riffs on old cliches.

To me, a great game is one that gives weight to all of those aims, and produces an immersible world, a complex story, and a challenge - or a game that takes one aim and takes it head and shoulders above all the competition. The worst kind of game is one that delivers a mediocre experience of all three - where the graphics are worn and unimaginative, the story dull, and the challenge completely lacking.

There are, in my (somewhat limited) experience three possible ways to go about this.

The Traditional Route

This involves a degree. Preferably a relevant technical degree; computer programming, computer generated art, animation. Essentially, the more practical skills you can demonstrate, the more useful you are. Having a font of good ideas or half-assed doodles will get you nowhere unless you have the technical expertise to back them.

It should be noted that I have a degree in English & Creative Writing. Although I believe writing is just as much of a technical skill as the above, it is often not seen that way. Mainstream video games often undervalue the writer, preferring to spend the budget on whizz-bang graphics instead. If you want to assure yourself of a job in the industry, stick with computer-based courses.

There are plenty of universities that now offer courses specifically tailored to video games. Do your research and pick wisely.

You’ll enter at the bottom of the food chain, but like most industries you can get promoted, shifted sideways and retrained. The more experience you have, the better chance you’ll have of landing a job with some influence.

Pros: Secure, high chance of success.

Cons: Takes a long time, little creative control.

The Bootstrap Method

Mainstream gaming is alive and well, and will be for quite some time. However, alongside it is the thriving indie game market. With downloadable games eliminating many of the start up costs associated with distribution of media, the indie designer has enormous potential.

You’ll need a lot of skills to make this succeed. Whilst the traditional method requires you to be above-average in one skill, the bootstrap method requires that you excel at many. You’ll need to be a writer, designer, programer, and be responsible for marketing and sales. You’ll need to be able to handle accounts and budgets as well as come up with creative and memorable games. And you’ll need to do all that on a low budget.

If you do have all that, however, you have the advantage of being completely in control. If you consider that a degree takes 3-4 years and costs tuition, it starts to seem easier. Come up with a good business model, and you could see a lot higher returns than a salaried worker.

Pros: Creative control, not much to lose, can be done around a ‘day job’.

Cons: Insecure, requires a lot of personal commitment and talent.

The Volunteer

Between these two is a third option. If you have a set of skills, give them to an indie developer or studio. Pick something you want to work on, and don’t expect to be paid. Produce professional, polished work, meet deadlines and communicate.

Do this well, and you will eventually end up with a paying gig. Although small studios rarely offer the same kind of salary as the giants, you’ll probably have more fun, more input, and more flexibility. Find the right group, and your studio could take off, and you’ll have the benefit of being there at the start.

Pros: Little risk, flexible, fun.

Cons: Low pay if any, chance of work going to waste if the team falls apart. Pick your studio wisely!

The Crab

Depending on what your skills are, you could do an industry hop. Get famous in one industry - such as films, novels, comics, animated movies, theatre, etc, and you can use your name as a selling point. Of course, this demands that you are good enough at your chosen skill to become an industry name. Creative freelancers often run several careers at once around easily transferable skills.

Start with whatever you can get, and do it well. After a while, people will start to recommend you, notice you, and ask for you. Network extensively, and remember that you are selling yourself so make sure you always produce top-notch work, whatever the job.

Pros: Flexibility, choice, low-risk in terms of keeping your options open.

Cons: Better be a fan of everything, not just games. Requires good networking skills.

Each of these approaches appeal will vary, depending on what kind of person you are. None of them are better or worse than another, but the results will differ. A stable job at a big studio is very different from running a studio from your bedroom.

There are two things all of these methods have in common, however. Skill and dedication.

It takes skill to successfully complete a degree, and dedication to see those 3-5 years through.

It takes skill to create a game from scratch, and dedication to follow through on your ideas with hard work.

It takes skill to appeal to indi developers, and dedication to prouduce professional work for little or no pay.

It takes skill to succeed in any industry, and dedication to perserve through the less-interesting jobs as well as the fun ones.

The Method that Doesn’t Work

Writing a script, designing characters, composing music, all without any formal training, minimal practice and study, no redrafting. Sending it to a mainstream company and expecting them to hire you on the spot, in a position of creative control. The base line is, lots of talented people want to work in video games. Talent rarely springs forth naturally without a lot of training and practice. Playing video games, although an essential part of working in the industry, is not the only qualification you need.

Image by Lumaxart

In completely seperate news, I was invited to speak on the BoRT’cast for March and April. It was my first podcast, and was very interesting - thanks to both Corvus and Keith for some great conversation.

This month’s Round Table challenges you to design a game that deals with a social issue that personally troubles you. The recent months have seen controversy sweep through the video game industry. Whether people are objecting to the use of imagery widely considered to evoke racial stereotypes, or to the gameplay based on violent sexual crimes, or to the fact that anyone would complain about either topic–the discussion has been fierce. This month, contributors to the Round Table are invited to design a game that focuses on racism, rape, domestic violence, cruelty to animals, genocide, or any other serious, and potentially hot-button, topic.

I spent a lot of time thinking about this BORT entry. It was very difficult for me to get away from relying on the ’shock’ factor of excessive violence/misery to drive a point home, but my general feeling is that this isn’t the best way to approach grown-up story-telling.

The game idea I came up with is fairly standard in execution. It is set in generic modern city, and you control the stories of two characters as they progress from childhood to adulthood. The game opens with them playing together, and you take over the first character when he returns home for the night.

Each character is given quests, by parents, other children, and other adults. Some of these quests conflict, for example - one quest may be to get an A in an exam by studying for 4 hours, whilst a conflicting quest may be to reinforce social bonds by playing with a ball in the street for 4 hours. There are four main ’stats’ - Intelligence, Popularity, Wealth, and Respect. Different quests boost specific stats. Quests can be mini-games, puzzles, or simple ‘fetch and bring’.

The first character is relatively middle-class, and his main quests center around the academic world, dating, and getting the highest paying job possible. The second character is working class, and his quests center around the street gangs in his neighborhood, helping his single, working mother, and raising money.

Having done a quest with one character, you discover you can perform the same actions with the second. For example, the working-class character is never offered an academic success quest - nobody requests that he study or get an A. The middle-class character is never offered a raising money quest. Performing the same actions generates less XP, and no other positive reinforcements. The motivation should be very strong for character A to do well at school, date someone exclusively during college, and find a high-paying job. Eventually they produce a child of their own. The motivation should be very strong for the second character to spend most of their time generating wealth, boosting their standing with the street gang, and eventually producing a child of their own. After a point, however, the second characters options - if they have followed their own quest tree - will dwindle and dwindle until they are effectively trapped by low income and age.

IF the player chooses to do the ‘other characters’ quests without the early positive reinforcement, it opens an entirely different quest tree - one that eventually leads to a much higher level for both characters, and a much more upbeat and rewarding ending. In addition, it unlocks a fifth stat - Happiness.

What’s the point of the game?

On the surface, I want it to be a pretty simple puzzle/RPG. In essence, I’m trying to tackle the nature of class privilege - both characters are strongly pushed towards a particular lifestyle. They are rewarded for choices that create that lifestyle, and eventually trapped into that same lifestyle. Choosing the less rewarding path, however, eventually pays off massive dividends and opens up the entire game.

Different women like different things

There are no ‘boys’ games and ‘girls’ games, except in as far as society dictates. When it comes to gaming the main factors that influence skill are the age at which you start to play, and the number of hours you put in.

We can all point to women we know who play FPS games, RTS games, or play extremely competitively and violently. In many cases I would argue that female gamers can be more competitive than male gamers, as they are frequently belittled or derided in video game settings. We can also all point to women who like cute and fluffy games, Sim-style games, and MMO’s.

When discussing women and female games as a group, it is important to acknowledge that they are a huge and extremely diverse group. Attempting to blenderise all these women into a single type of ‘kick-ass chick’ gamer, or ‘casual puzzle gamer’ is simply unacceptable.

The easiest way to get complex, identifiable female characters is to employ female writers

When someone enters a fictional world, they will look for characters that remind them of themselves and the people they know. If all central characters are male then it creates a small barrier between the player and the fictional world. If central characters are female, but are never impacted by any of the issues that women face, it creates another type of barrier. If central characters are hyper-sexualised female dolls, it creates yet another type of barrier.

Worse, is if all women in the fictional world appear to be victims, or puppets without self-will. Grand Theft Auto is a series that repeatedly fails in its portrayal of women. All the women in that series are defined by their relationship to men. They are either prostitutes, girlfriends or wives. Very few appear to have any kind of autonomy. Worse, sexualised violence is always an option, but the consequences of sexualised violence do not exist.

There is an easy way to solve this issue, and keep everyone happy. Create a more diverse cast of female characters. To do this, you need to hire female writers and developers.

Show consequences

The majority of war games focus on the front-line - on the soldiers, on the military casualties, on the weapons that are explicitly key to to surviving. What most fail to consider is the massive social changes that both contribute to the ‘war effort’ and the long term results of those changes. The war was not won solely by young men with guns, and the efforts of all those that remained at home should not be ignored.

Violence in video games often has extreme graphical consequences - arterial blood, horrible screams, gory mutilations. Emotional consequences - for everyone involved in that act - are ignored. Or they are treated in childish, simplistic terms - a murder of a loved one provides the motivation for someone to seek revenge. Random genocide by the psychopathic bad guy motivates the heroes to start fighting back. Until video games can deal with grief and loss in a grown up way, they will be unable to tackle any truly complex questions about what it means to be human - male or female.

Acknowledge that something other than the game might be driving women away

Not all competitive guilds or clans exhibit misogynistic behavior. A shocking amount of them do. A particular kind of online gamer-culture will demonise women and almost invariably sexualise them. Nobody should have to feel that they need to remain anonymous in order to be respected, and nobody should be the victim of threats. In many many cases I believe women quit these competitive gaming arenas because of this culture, and not because they dislike or cannot play the game.