The Concept of Love

10 Quick Thoughts - May (and Mostly About UI) Edition

2010-05-11T23:17:00.005-04:00

I don't really see this in my daily circles, but I find some peoples' complaints about certain games to be misplaced. Like the old saying goes, "You can't always get what you want." If that game doesn't do what you want it to do, then it's not the game's fault. It's yours for not finding value in something that was designed to supply value for a specific kind of gamer. Example: I don't really like Tower Defense games, but it's because it's just not my thing. I can't complain and say those games suck, as that would be irrational and disrespectful.
UI/menu design is part of a game's overall design, plain and simple. Going through menus and viewing the UI is part of the overall experience, and should be in a designer's mind as he/she designs their game.
You can notice how some designers don't understand this when playing certain games and even using certain pieces of hardware. You can easily point out inefficient ways of handling the menu system, as well as words that don't properly convey the meaning of a feature. I doubt an average user understands most of the buttons on the keyboard because of their labels (ESC, SHIFT, CONTROL). Think about that in the shoes of someone who doesn't know what they mean. Would it make any sense to you? Probably not. This was because engineers came up with these designs, not user-interface designers, and didn't know it was going to be used by almost everyone in the future (which is understandable, but we should probably update these things.)
Sometimes I think computers are basically ginormous games that don't have any tutorials. Everyone seems to think we need entirely new UI's and transparent interfaces to get everyone to understand them, but OS's like Windows and Mac OS X never explained themselves to the user to begin with. I would like to know what the world would be like if Windows actually explained itself to a standard user. Would we still be trying to come up with transparent UI's with more knowledgeable users? As well, what modifications to the UI would interface designers make knowing that they had to inform the user of its features in a tutorial? I bet you the systems would generally become more streamlined because of it.
I've said this before, but all those Natal-based UI systems that designers/engineers create, to show their vision of the future, the one without a mouse? Yeah, try doing all that hand gesture shit in an 8-hour work day. They need to design these things with those kinds of experiences in mind (imagine working on a spreadsheet with your hands waiving in the air) if they want these things to actually get off the ground. Show me that and I will believe in your future. I agree we shouldn't rely on the mouse anymore, but I don't think I've seen a proper alternative yet.
I can only imagine Tom Cruise was tired after the first few takes when filming Minority Report.
When designing games, I realized that I start with a simple interaction first, and then expand upon the game's rules, based on that interaction. And usually that interaction is based on a particular emotion I'm trying to evoke. Which is usually created when listening to certain songs.
I thought a lot about the "gameplay groove" after writing my article on the topic. I think when prototyping a game, you're trying to define a worthwhile gameplay groove. That's the real, core intent of prototyping. Things don't feel right when there's nothing to "control" in the player's mind as they play it. You try to expect what the player is thinking and feeling as you play and design this prototype. How would the player represent these rules in his/her mind? Is it clear? Is it enjoyable? The gameplay groove is basically how the player reacts to the game's rules as he/she plays it. You have to put yourself in their shoes when prototyping. If you can create a prototype with a strong micro-gameplay groove, then you're on your way to making a fun game.
Sometimes I think games are too expensive, essentially blocking their mainstream success because of their price tags. Not everyone has a Bentley for that reason. And some people feel hesitant on buying $20 DVD's, let alone a $60 video game. Devs complain about the "race to the bottom" iPhone market (in regards to pricing), but I'm sure consumers are loving the prices of iPhone apps and games. Should we expect people to spend $60 on a form of entertainment, even though it can possibly provide more hours of enjoyment than the other forms?
I was upset to not see Tetsuya Mizuguchi's name listed in the comments section of Kotaku's "Who is your favorite Game Designer?" article. I find that to be offensive, and primarily based on how current his games are. He hasn't made anything since Lumines II, back in 2006, so more than likely his existence isn't blatantly known in the gaming community. Others with more current games were, like Tim Schaefer (Brutal Legend). I don't question their inclusion; I'm only questioning Mizuguchi's exclusion.

Iron Man Symbiosis

2010-04-25T00:19:00.011-04:00

These are the first three pages to my very own manual for an Iron Man video game, subtitled Symbiosis. I would like to finish the entire thing (I had 10-11 pages of an actual manual outlined), but I don't have much motivation in me to finish the rest. I was planning to even print out a copy, to complete an actual manual, but print design requires higher res art than what this feeble artist (and Google) can provide.

I was hoping to make this a "thing", where designers could express themselves the same way an artist or programmer would. You guys have it lucky, where you can use pencil/paper and a code editor to "create". Designers can't really see anything without the help of an artist or coder, and for that I am sad. Our art is inexpressible (until a product is basically complete), for the majority of us. I know level designers have the ability to express themselves, but again, you need art and code to make the thing run properly. So my answer to this conundrum was the Design Manual, essentially giving the age-old manual another pass at existence (seeing as how they may be on their way out soon).

The only problem I came into was how to define the game properly in this form. Most manuals don't really explain the full expansiveness of a game, unlike a standard GDD. So I planned to simply combine the two in the Design Manual. I'd put on a marketing spin, but also define the game more than what you'd find in a standard manual.

I currently only have the cover art, the legals page (with the text done completely by hand), and a letter of introduction from yours truly. I believe Cliff Bleszinski did something similar to a letter of introduction in Gears of War's manual, but that I'm not sure on. If so, I agree with the idea and decided to do it myself. I think being open with your audience is a much better way of cultivating a sense of community, and it also defines for the player what the overall idea was behind the game. I remember Everyday Shooter had a Notes section from the developer, Jonathan Mak, and I always thought that was a great touch.

For my take on Iron Man, I was planning to create a Metroid Prime-esque FPA experience, with the player seeing the action through Tony Stark's eyes while in the Iron Man suit. I have subtle hints of that in the cover art (you can see an alpha'd picture of Tony Stark with the in-suit HUD over his face), and the letter of introduction. To me, that was what the first movie portrayed. I was hoping someone would create that kind of game, but I doubt that will ever come to pass, seeing as how capitalism likes to fuck things up for the rest of us.

Ah well. If I find enough motivation I'll try to finish it up, but I wouldn't hold my breath:)

10 Quick Thoughts

2010-04-11T18:29:00.018-04:00

If Twitter has taught me anything, it's that you can say a lot with very little. Each tweet is only 140 characters, and with enough editing expertise, each can explain a complex idea quite completely. But it also has the advantage of not overbearing the reader with extraneous information. As well, it doesn't take a lot of time to write something short, compared to a long blog entry. So, I've decided to apply a different style of blog entry that I call "10 Quick Thoughts." It's basically a list of 10 random tweets about video games and/or design, but in one convenient place. This also affords me the ability to extend the 140 limit just a bit, to better serve my goals.

I like expressing myself through the power of word, but I don't like how long it takes to write something cohesive and interesting. So this is my alternative. This idea is also something I try to bring to the games I design. My style is to keep the core gameplay short and sweet (much sweeter than most), with a good helping of complexity to keep a gamer's attention. Examples would be Street Fighter. Most fights take 2 minutes to complete, but how that is done varies with the game's complexity. So, without further adieu, here are 10 Quick Thoughts, which hopefully will be the first of many.

I do have one request though: take some time and think about each thought as you read them. As I read the list myself, I felt myself trying to get to the next one as quickly as possible, which in turn brought a lazy eye to the meaning of each. If you have to, read one and then wait some time before reading the next. Just take a deep breath and know you will read and understand them all in due time. But again, that is a simple request, and is not required.

Replaying Final Fantasy IX, I feel that Zidane is not as strong or as interesting a character as Cloud or Squall. Kind of a standard adventurer, whereas the others had a bit more emotion to their personas. However, I never got very far into the game, and I may learn a thing or two about Zidane later.
Half-Minute Hero's focus on Time and Inventory Management (forgoing manual combat) has intrigued me a lot. It's a new and interesting idea from my point of view, and I would love to expand on those designs with some of my own.
However, when first playing the game, I really didn't understand how the game was going to be structured with somewhat obscure menu designs.
I sometimes wonder if listening to music BEFORE playing the game is better in the long run. If you know a song intimately, it seems easier to understand the emotion that it has applied to gameplay. If not, the emotion is only found after the fact. Been interesting to see how I enjoy FFIX after listening to its soundtrack first.
Continuing on that note, I would love to see an indie dev break up a game's release between introductory music and the actual game. Not necessarily teaser music though. I would have different music for the game itself, and make it so the intro music complements the experience, maybe 20-30 mins of music. It would be interesting to see what expectations the player would have when first playing the game.
I equate the first 3 hours of Assassin's Creed 2 to a play, and believe many people to say it wasn't interesting because they thought it was more of a movie. People cited bad voice acting, but if you put it into play terms, it's actually quite interesting. Ezio, in particular, fits that bill quite well.
One of the biggest issues I have with 3D games is the lack of a proper perspective. If you're looking at someone in real life, they're quite big, no? FPSes and other 3D games apparently think otherwise. RE4 was the best game to fix that issue.
I would love to create a nature documentary game with David Attenborough, where you're the cameraman on one of his trips. You would travel to various locales and simply follow an AI-controlled Attenborough, constantly informing you of the area's flora, fauna, and history. Main goal is to film 2 hours worth of nature footage, with different areas to choose from, enhancing replayability.
I've been trying to play the Splinter Cell: Conviction demo, but Msoft is only giving LIVE Gold members access to it (I have Silver). Which seems weird. Isn't Ubisoft trying to get people to buy the game? As of now, their market audience is limited when concerning the entire 360 userbase.
Playing Valkyria Chronicles, while amazingly awesome, makes me understand the advantage of not having the player tap a button to forward a conversation. Having each character's voice-acted lines broken up by manual input makes the whole experience extremely awkward. I don't like to admit it, but that's something I learned from Uncharted 2 and its expert ability to TELL a story (not necessarily to tell a GOOD story)

The Gameplay Groove

2010-03-27T15:31:00.084-04:00

Gameplay Groove: -noun

1. How a player perceives the structure of a game, concerning its game design, level design, and art design.

You may not know it, but every game has a "gameplay groove". Interestingly, it isn't something a game designer explicitly designs. It's something the players themselves create within their own minds as they go through the experience.

I'll give you an example, to start this article off with a bang. In Metroid games, a player understands that any wall could mean Morph Ball passages. They then go around to each room in the game and Morph Ball Bomb every available inch, in search of those rare secret passages. Now, fast forward to the 5-hour mark. Finding the secret passages has now become a mechanical task within the player's mind, scanning and bombing every wall in the game in hopes of finding a new secret passage. However, there's not much thought behind the whole process. In many ways, it's a soulless task, taking away any immersion the game might have had. The player then tries to decipher the game's level design techniques, making the experience even more mechanical.

But oddly, this is not what a player thinks about when first starting to play the game. Most players are absorbed into the game, taking anything it throws at them, in part because it lacks any kind of definable structure. The possibilities are endless at the very beginning of the game. Players won't know what to expect from it, as they have not been given its definition. It's a far wondrous experience when its existence is ethereal, lacking any semblance of a gameplay structure. I recently played Cave Story, and felt that feeling when starting the game for the first time. I knew nothing about Cave Story before playing the WiiWare version, and I was excited to experience it in a fresh way.

However, there's a clear distinction between learning the game and performing within the game's ruleset after they're established. At the beginning, most narrative-based games like Metroid or Halo start off with simple interactions, introducing the game's rules and design as the player interacts within its universe. Metroid Prime's Space Frigate level explains how to use the Scan Visor, how to lock onto enemies, and how to turn into a Morph Ball to solve puzzles and get Samus through tight spaces. When a player first learns this stuff, it feels very organic. They're experiencing something interesting for the first time. They don't really say to themselves "That's going to be something I need to think about for the next 20-30 hours." It just feels cool and organic.

However, play the game for 5 more hours, and you'll find yourself in what I call the "gameplay groove." The player knows exactly what must be done to progress in the game. Continuing with the example of Metroid Prime, a player learns that the game's level design is broken up into rooms, with certain sections blocked off. To overcome these obstacles, the player must search for the power-up that opens the way. New areas lead to new blocked-off areas, which again lead to new power-ups. This happens throughout the entire game's experience, and this is what the player expects to happen. Each section and power-up is different, but the core structure of the game is set in stone for most of the game's length. The player is taught this in the first few hours of the game, and then expects it to continue until the end. Players willingly puts themselves into the gameplay groove. But why?

Well, the gameplay groove is a very comfortable place for the player. What they expect is then given to them. They can plan their attack when they know a Boss Battle is right around the corner. Another example is The Legend of Zelda. Each dungeon consists of retrieving small keys, a map, a compass, a new item, and the boss key. It's been that structure since the original NES title. We all feel comfortable when earning these items, as it's something we know. Knowing is a very powerful motivator. Think about Super Mario Bros.: 8 worlds, each with 4 levels, with the last level in each world a battle against Bowser. At this point it's an iconic representation of a Mario game, and we feel hugely comfortable in knowing how the game is structured. We KNOW what makes a Mario game, and that's half the enjoyment for some players.

Now, this is the macro view of the gameplay groove. This concerns what the player expects and perceives the game to be on a broader level. Zelda is traversing a giant land, finding a dungeon, earning a new item, defeating a Boss, and then doing it all over again until you defeat Ganon. That's the bare essentials the player is thinking about. It's something I used to call "list games." Ocarina of Time tells you that you first must find three Gems to open the Temple of Time's door to earn the Master Sword. After that, they tell you that you must awaken the 5 Sages to defeat Ganondorf. A more recent example is BioShock 2. At the very beginning of the game, the player learns about the Subway system. Each level is a stop on the map, with each stop creating some reason as to why the player can't go to the next one yet. The player essentially assumes the rest of the game from the very beginning with this kind of macro-level gameplay groove.

This is how level design makes its way into the definition of gameplay groove. A level designer had to sit down and plot that scenario out, and commit it to paper. In the example of BioShock 2, the level designers even went as far as to explain the system visually with the Subway map, where each dot is a stop on the line. You can then count how many levels a player has to beat in order to complete the game. This is then the form the player computes in his or her mind. Get to a stop, defeat the area by retrieving the key, go back to the subway station, open the next area with the key, proceed to the next area, repeat. As you can see, it's a simple structure to decipher.

The macro-gameplay groove is the bare essentials the player has to compute within his or her mind to define the game, and that's what they involuntarily think about when they go through the game. Now, the examples given define their macro-gameplay groove quite blatantly, but not every game does that. Some games are a bit more organic with their macro-gameplay grooves. One example is Half-Life, where the game doesn't have an easily-definable structure. The player goes from area to area, defeating the enemies he encounters. Sometimes there's a puzzle he has to solve, but it's nothing consistent, especially when the level design varies greatly from area to area. The fact that they go from area to area is a macro-gameplay groove, but the pacing is much more organic, to the point where the macro-gameplay groove is transparent.

However, this game has another gameplay groove: the micro-level gameplay groove. This is the core system a player thinks about when playing the game, the nitty-gritty as it were. This involves low-level brain interpretation, where the player takes the forms the game throws at him/her through level, art, and game design. One example is Gears of War. When Marcus Fenix reaches certain sections of the game, waves of enemies come out and attack him. Now, the way the player interacts is by finding cover and attacking back. So, what the player must do is find what constitutes as cover and get behind it. Cover is defined as walls, tables, burnt-out cars, etc. As I said before, when a player first learns this, it's a great experience, feeling very organic and fresh. But do this activity for hours on end, and a player's brain boils it down to the bare essentials. Take a look at this picture:

Before a player actually plays Gears of War, they're coming up with different emotions based on the ensuing action provided by this picture (which are usually supplied to gamers through the press, to get them interested in the game). They'll come up with their own version of the game's narrative, they'll come up with their own game designs, but all that will change when they get into Gears of War's micro-gameplay groove, when they actually play the game. It then boils down to what constitutes as cover and the player acts solely on that fact. If you look at the picture now, with that in mind, you specifically see the walls, the couch, the pillars and the enemies. That's it. You're generally not caring about the overall experience of Gears of War when this happens, or even things like graphical presentation. You're acting on the game design solely, in a very mechanical/binary fashion.

Everything is reduced to its simplest form in your brain. Beautiful walls with years of history become cover spot 1-7. It doesn't matter what the context of these walls are; they're there for you to act upon the game's mechanics, nothing more. As I've reiterated before, this is not at all what the player thinks about when first starting the game. There's far more context and simple awe to the game when the player learns the game's ruleset and interacts with the game's universe for the first time. Once that's done with and the player needs to beat the game's challenges, the gameplay groove takes over, and this is where the organic/fresh feeling disappears completely.

Here's another picture, a more recent one:

This is THQ/Vigil Games' Darksiders. I've only played the demo, so I have not been accustomed to its gameplay groove just yet, so this picture is a bit mysterious to me. But what about you? What are you thinking about when you see this picture? It looks typically epic for a PR-supplied screen, with War riding on a bad-ass looking horse while firing at an enemy. Now, do me a favor and play the game for 5 hours. When you're up to that point, come back and look at this photo again, and I'm sure your interpretation of this screen will change dramatically, directly based on you getting into Darksiders' gameplay groove.

Why is this something to talk about? Because it's what the player is actually doing, in a mental sense. His/her eyes are taking the information on the screen and reducing it to its core components. A game designer defines the rules the player must follow, their interactions, but I don't think designers have considered the effects of their designs on a more intimate level when the game turns into a 20-30 hour experience. They assume a 3rd-person shooter with cover mechanics will be a fun interaction for a player, but what happens to the player when that simple interaction is repeated over and over again? Is that fun? And is there some way to extend the initial feeling a player has, with minimizing the inevitable, soulless gameplay groove?

Now, I will say that most game designers are demanded to supply a marketable number of gameplay hours for their game, to help with sales, so they don't really have the ability to ask themselves such a question. But it's something that should always be in their minds regardless, to really know what a player is thinking about when he/she plays their games.

And this also affects how players appreciate the other parts of the game, like art and narrative. Think of those previous screens. When deep into the gameplay-groove, little details like the couch and the fire coming from War's horse get pushed aside in the player's mind. It's not something he/she needs to worry about when entrenched in the gameplay groove, which is unfortunate, because artists/writers/designers/coders put a good amount of time into creating those little details, and it's troublesome to see how the gameplay groove can divert a player's attention away from these special additions.

But let me just say that this idea is something very new to me, and from what I've read, for most people in the games industry as well. I'm still learning the effects the gameplay groove has on player experiences. For example (based on @mittense's comments), games like GTA and Just Cause supply user-defined gameplay grooves, where the players themselves get to decide what to think about when playing the game. Are you a car-combat player or an on-foot player? Think of Deus Ex especially, where the core message of the game was to give players the tools to complete the game in their own way. Depending on which style you choose, you'll get into a different gameplay groove, which is probably why these games are so liberating and enjoyable for so many players. They can be whatever the player wants them to be, with micro-level gameplay grooves defined by the players themselves. Of course there's a finite number of gameplay grooves a sandbox game can create, but it's more than the one the majority of games create.

Another interesting side effect of the gameplay groove is when going back to older games. Most players want to experience the game fresh all over again, with the same feelings they first had when experiencing the game those many years ago. But that can never happen, as they've beaten the game already (possibly more than once), so all they're going to see are the forms and structures their brain created when first getting into its gameplay groove. However, it's even less fresh now, where even the beginning of the game is reduced down to its bare essentials. That's why people say older games are never as entertaining as newer ones. New games supply a gameplay groove to learn and experience, whereas old games have their gameplay groove known and experienced to its fullest. There's very little incentive in playing older games with that fact known.

The only way old games can be as entertaining is if they introduce something a player didn't experience before, like an unknown difficulty with new techniques and strategies to learn. One example is the Devil May Cry series, with their various difficulties that up the ante considerably in terms of enemy AI. Another example would be Goldeneye, with its 00 Agent difficulty, where it adds new objectives to complete. The player has to possibly find new gameplay grooves to complete these difficulties.

Another interesting aspect of gameplay groove is when there is no noticeable gameplay groove, even though the player has been playing the game for several hours. I had trouble getting into Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion because there didn't seem to be any structure to latch onto. I have all these stats, but do I need them all to be maxed out to beat and enjoy the game? I have 3 Guilds to join, but what's the reasoning behind choosing one over the other? There were too many questions with no answers in Oblivion for me. There was a gameplay groove in that game, but its existence was something I had to search for, and I was unwilling to do so.

And that's another part to this equation. It sounds like the gameplay groove is something that takes the game's soul away, but if there was no gameplay groove at all, then it would be too open-ended for a player to define, leaving them a bit bewildered. Of course, that was my experience with Oblivion. I'm sure many others had better experiences, where they grasped onto a gameplay groove that helped carry them through the rest of the game. But it's interesting to see that gameplay grooves are something that enhance the experience, or at the very least make it a cohesive one.

My hypothesis is that the less blatant the macro-gameplay groove, the more immersive the experience becomes, as it masks any designed structure the player may pick up on. However, there needs to be some form of gameplay groove, to give players control over the experience as a whole, which was something Oblivion lacked (again, for me). Best advice is to design a structure, but not to make it a blatant one. One example: there shouldn't have been a Subway map in BioShock 2, to hide the gameplay groove from the player. Keep the system, but reduce its visibility.

As for the micro-gameplay groove, it would be hard to reduce its effects, seeing as how it's basically "the game". One suggestion would be to continue to introduce new mechanics, where the gameplay groove takes on different forms at certain points in the game. One recent example is Final Fantasy XIII. Square-Enix chopped up the battle system into smaller chunks when explaining it to the player, and only fully explained the entire system maybe 5 hours into the game. Before knowing the full system, the player assumed what they knew WAS the full system, creating their desired gameplay grooves in the process. However, after learning a new aspect of the battle system (like Paradigm Shifts), the player would get the chance to create a new gameplay groove, possibly feeling that fresh/organic feeling he felt earlier in the game.

But, of course, a game needs to define its micro-gameplay groove at some point, otherwise the entire game is just one big tutorial. I'm sure most players will get annoyed at constantly needing to learn a new mechanic, so a designer must balance out both aspects.

But the fact is that video games are designed to be beaten, and the player can only do that by following its rules. The game is essentially an exercise in following these rules, with a few of them being elaborated upon for variety's sake. The game can't supply something that doesn't follow its own rules, otherwise the player will become confused and simply give up. This makes it seem that gameplay grooves are inevitable, it's just what happens to a game when the brain experiences it for a given length of time. It's probably true, but as I've talked about earlier, designers can at the very least reduce the visibility of these mechanical aspects, to give the player the ability to immerse themselves in the game's universe just a little bit more.

Anyway, those are my ideas on the interestingly-named “gameplay groove”. Hopefully this was something new to you as well, and I'm not just reiterating a gameplay groove someone already defined:)

I actually have another piece of advice: cherish the time you're not in the gameplay groove.

Video of my latest WipEout HD/Fury Zone Mode accomplishment

2010-02-10T01:42:00.001-05:00

Believe in Your Game's Believability

2009-12-09T23:19:00.011-05:00

Earlier this week I proposed the question: How important is believability in a video game, especially ones with narrative? I got into a few short discussions about it over Twitter, but I have to confess something. My reason for asking that question stemmed from one specific example, and I wanted to understand the effects this one example had on my idea of believability in the video game medium. It's a selfish (and somewhat harmful) way of bringing my issue to the forefront of our daily lives (via Twitter), so I wanted to make it up by fully explaining myself.

The example in question is from Assassin's Creed 2. If you've read my earlier entry/review on this amazing game, you'd know I'm completely in love with Ezio Auditore da Firenze. He's one of the strongest and most interesting characters I've ever controlled in a video game. Now, the game didn't do a great job of completing the character, but I can't think of a better base than Ezio.

However, the issue I came across was at the very beginning of the game. My argument includes a few spoilers, so if you haven't played the first 3 hours of AC2 (or at all), then I would suggest not reading any further.

...

Ok, for those of us still here, I will continue. Once Ezio's family is imprisoned, Ezio's father, Giovanni, instructs Ezio to find the hidden room in their house. Using Eagle Vision, Ezio reveals a secret of the Auditore family: that his father apparently wears an awesome-looking white cloak. At this point, Ezio doesn't know about the Order of the Assassins, and simply dons the suit and its weapons to appease his father's wishes.

As Ezio exits his family's pallazzo, two armed guards come and attack him. This is where the player learns how to use a sword, something that will happen quite often during the game's campaign. So, the game instructs you on how to kill the armed guards with your newly-acquired sword. Without much of a problem, Ezio dispatches the two guards. Nothing wrong with that, right? Sounds like a pretty fun game.

Well, yeah, there is a problem with that. Ezio never killed anyone until that very moment. He's beaten up a few guys with his fists (another weapon AC2 supplies), but he's never killed anyone before. To kill another human being is a heavy-handed ordeal. You don't simply sheathe your sword and walk away. The killers of the world have (generally) experienced massive amounts of guilt for their actions, with some unable to bear it. Some even take their own lives, in a feeble attempt to serve the dead, and their own conscience.

But in Ezio's world, killing is simple entertainment for the player. "Oh awesome, we get to kill dudes with swords now, fuck yeah!", says the intended market Ubisoft is catering to. This is where believability in a beautiful video game faltered. Let me rephrase that actually: this is where MY believability faltered.

If Ezio was indeed supposed to kill those guards, then explain to me why. As of right now, I don't believe he would have killed those guards. They did say they were going to attack him, with the intent of murder, but Ezio still would not have killed them. He was too innocent to do such a horrible act. The world and narrative that Ubisoft had created didn't let Ezio become a murderer. So at that point, the level of believability that Assassin's Creed was going for crumbled a bit. I didn't expect that to happen, and I completely disagreed with it.

However, if Ubisoft included a simple cinematic to bring out the fact that Ezio just committed his first murder, and explained to me that it HAD to happen, then the level of believability would have been saved. I would have then understood that Ezio's action were creating the kind of character he was to become. Right now it's simply inferred. He just donned the Assassin suit and committed his first murder, continuing the Hashshashin tradition that his forefathers bore, but something that powerful and emotional needs attention.

This idea of inferred characterization is something that people use to show how powerful video game storytelling can be, where the player's actions create the story. However, in the example of Assassin's Creed 2, there was already a story in place, and the player's action directly destroyed that narrative. Again, this is because Ubisoft never explained it properly. It needs to be explicitly conveyed, otherwise the player is taken aback at what just happened. "Wait, Ezio just killed someone?! I'm not so sure he would have done that." says the designer with too much time on his hands.

In the end, Ezio became an empty shell for the player's enjoyment, destroying the rules of AC2's universe that Ubisoft had created. My believability was shaken after playing this sequence, easily seeing that this was where the designer decided to let the player have a sword, and not where Ezio became an Assassin. And I'll agree, killing those guards was a lot of fun, but if Ezio had the choice, 9 times out of 10, he wouldn't have killed them.

That's how important believability is to a game, where a simple tutorial inadvertently destroys a character. In the grand scheme of things however, it's not the biggest deal. I was distracted at this point, but I knew there was 20+ more hours of amazing entertainment in front of me. I didn't generally believe in what had happened to Ezio, or why he was doing the things he did, but I still had fun. It's like a constant battle between narrative and interactivity, with interactivity usually trumping the former when it deals with the video game medium. So it's not the easiest thing to say which way you should go. The best advice I can give is to scale your game's entertainment value to your universe's set of rules (it's inherent believability). If your universe cannot manifest fun (or enough of it), then it shouldn't be used in a video game.

But as I pondered what had happened with Ezio, I started to understand what's at the heart of this situation. I can sum it up by saying, You either define your character through their actions, or you define his actions through their character. Basically, if Ezio was indeed the killer that he became, explain to me that he is a killer. As I said before, Ezio's transcendence into an Assassin was inferred, almost to the point that it didn't exist. The other side of that token is to supply only that which your character would do. If your character hates guns, just know he would never use them. So if your game includes a gun-hating protagonist, it probably shouldn't include guns.

Gameplay defines the character, or the character defines the gameplay.

This was the heart of my earlier question about believability. For some designers out there, this is something already known and practiced. But at some points, I feel that the very basics of expression are not discussed, especially with video game design, being that it's so young. So hopefully this fairly inconsequential example from Assassin's Creed 2 made you think about the issue of believability, and to see the effects it has on the player.

Where has Normal Ezio Gone?

2009-11-29T18:56:00.034-05:00

Just an fyi before I start: I'm one of the biggest Assassin's Creed fans on this pale blue dot. The first game is easily in my Top 10 Games of All Time, and I valiantly defended all of its faults to my friends/coworkers/Hashashin brethren. I even bought the Altair Avatar outfit for my 360 Avatar, which cost $5. It's one of those games that will define me as a game designer. As I go about my designer career, I think about what Assassin's Creed did and tried to do, even if it didn't exactly succeed in all of its endeavors. So it wasn't with much hesitation that I picked up Assassin's Creed 2 at launch, and, after putting a sizable amount into the game's campaign, I wanted to put down my own thoughts on it. A review if you will.

Don't Mess with a Proven Formula...Much

After watching a few of the trailers for AC2, I was worried that they were taking away too much of what made the first game so special. I saw all these set-piece action sequences (Leonardo's flying machine, the horse-carriage chase), designs that were pulled from a game like Uncharted.

Now, while playing the first game, I always thought they were trying to get away from video game conventions. It felt like it was trying to be an assassin simulator, one firmly rooted in historical accuracy. I'm sure you've asked yourself why Altair never attacked anyone at night. Well, that's because the Hashashin never did that. They always committed their assassinations in broad daylight, to make sure everyone saw it. There's a large list of ideas that went into this game that made it feel like a documentary of sorts, and not just a standard video game. That's one of the reasons why I thought it was so special. It's very much debatable if Ubisoft was successful with those ideas, but I found the attention to detail admirable in a video game developer.

But we all know the consequence of that. Many people didn't like the game's repetitive mission structure, which tried to explain what a real assassin would do before committing their acts. After watching those trailers, I was worried that they fixed people's complaints by using their trusty video game conventions to spice things up. But what about the parkour? What about the role-playing aspects, where I actually thought of myself as an assassin while playing the first AC? For the most part, those designs are still intact.

The parkour system still makes it extremely entertaining for a player to move from one side of a city to another. After I completed the first game's campaign, I went back to Jerusalem, Damascus, and Acre to simply walk around. Ubisoft have stated that the "Flags" were almost a joke, included to get anyone stupid enough to actually go out and find them all. I was one of those idiots, but it wasn't the goal that made me do it: it was the means. I simply loved moving around the cities like an assassin. It felt empowering, and it gave constant positive feedback to the player. Making a jump from one rooftop to another was a great reward, and each city was filled with them. Mirror's Edge tried to mimic the speed at which parkour achieved, while Assassin's Creed tried to mimic it's gracefulness.

For Assassin's Creed 2, they basically didn't touch the parkour system. It still moves with the grace of an eagle. Most of the animations are the ones Altair used in AC1, and it sadly even has a few of its problems, like making it hard to do small jumps with only the R Trigger. I'm glad they kept it intact without any major changes, but I wish they refined it a little more. Ubi had 2 years, and it's upsetting to see that they didn't refine the core aspect of the game.

Every time I get into a chase with the city guards, I'm constantly doing something I don't intend to do. It's mostly due to holding the A Button and R Trigger at the same time in an attempt to flee from the guards, but those buttons are also used to scale buildings and make jumps across gaps. So if I get anywhere near a jump or a wall while Sprinting, I'm going to fuck up my run by climbing up a wall or jumping onto a scaffolding. The result is some guards clipping me with their swords while I'm stupidly hanging on a wall right in from of them. Which isn't fun. It taints my experience, as it happens often. However, it's a problem deeply rooted in the game's control design, which makes it hard to find a solution.

As for the role-playing aspect, it's still alive within the game, albeit evolved. Altair wasn't much of a character. He was simply an assassin with a job. He's a somewhat realized character, but a one-dimensional one. But this actually helps with the idea of role-playing. It simplifies it for the player. You ask yourself: "What would an assassin do in this situation?" In Assassin's Creed 2, they wanted to give the main character an actual story, where they defined a specific kind of person in Ezio Auditore da Firenze. For a story-based game that's fantastic, and I really do like the prospect of Ezio, but it took away from the role-playing aspect, another reason why I felt the first game was so special. I'm constantly trying to think about what Ezio would do in the same situations, but it's not that simple. He has a family, he also had a life before he became an assassin. Would he so easily do what an assassin would do? I have my doubts...

Ezio Should have Stayed "Ezio"

...which brings me to my next point. If you got a chance to watch the Lineage videos that Ubisoft released around the game's launch, you would know that Ezio wasn't the original assassin in the Auditore family. His father held that role before him, but because Ubisoft advertised Ezio as the assassin, you knew something would have to happen to his father in order to place Ezio into that role. Fortunately, Ubisoft didn't do this right off the bat, and not with a simple cinematic either. You played as normal Ezio for maybe an hour or two before the game's plot picks up, and I felt that this section of the game was its strongest. It's so amazing, in fact, that it's a section of a video game that I will use as an example for future designs and references.

The first reason is Ezio himself. He's a normal person, a boy that simply wants to live life in Renaissance Italy. The scene where Ezio and his brother race to the top of a tower perfectly embodies this idea. He climbs to the top of a tower, narrowly beating his brother. Once there, he looks down upon the city of Firenze (Florence), joyous of the fact that he gets to experience everything it has to offer (which was a perfect intro for the game, what with the beautiful soundtrack playing as the game's logo morphs onto the screen). Then you see that Ezio is always trying to earn and retain the respect of his father, Giovanni Auditore, by doing little odds and ends for him. He helps his mother on a few missions, as well as his brothers and sister. Ezio was an actual person, and not in a situation that only a video game character would be privy to. No saving the world, no seeking vengeance. It was just real life. It's taking the ideas of realism that were laid down in AC1 and appling it to a much richer character.

Sadly, it had to end, as we all know what Ezio becomes when looking at the game's cover art. It was unexpected that a game about murderous assassins showed a sense of operatic beauty, but it's true. It was probably the last part of the game to be designed, so I understand why it was given such a short playtime when compared to the rest of the game, but I was sad to see it end. My wish would be to have an AC spin-off, where it played out like a simple adventure game, one that focuses more on emotional stories and simpler plot-lines. Forget about this male-power fantasy, and tell me something about the human emotion. You could see that Ezio loved his family with all his heart, but when the game's standard conspiracy-laden plot picked up, the young Ezio was lost. Some say that was another great aspect to the character, where he is pushed to don the assassin suit against his ultimate plan for life, but Ubisoft didn't explain that at all. I haven't beaten the game yet, so I may update this section if needed, but I don't think it would really matter. The largest portion of the game didn't include Normal Ezio; it included a standard video game character that looked amazing in an assassin suit.

Too Much GTA in My Assassin's Creed

Ubisoft must have really taken to heart some of the complaints of the first game. Before there was very little to do, now there's more than I could possibly list in this review. You have Assassination Contracts, Races, Feathers/Art/Weapons to collect, you have a Villa to renovate, etc, etc. Sadly, this is exactly what I didn't want to happen. It's too much video game for a video game franchise that started out by rethinking what a video game could/should be.

Now, I'm going to retract my complaints, on the grounds that it adds more time in this wonderful world, but I feel let down. AC1 was paving a new road of interactivity, but the popular vote demanded otherwise. I guess that's the designer in me talking. I would rather see innovation, an innovation that creates more immersion for the player, than to see my dollar go further.

Jesper Kyd has Outdone Himself

This relates to how I felt while playing as Normal Ezio, but when I first heard "Home in Florence", the track that plays in the background of Firenze, I nearly fainted from the overwhelming beauty. It's one of the best songs I've ever heard in a video game. It's so sweet and beautiful, that I was again surprised it was found in a game like Assassin's Creed. This is another reason why I was so emotionally floored by the beginning parts of the game. You have this young energetic Ezio helping his family live a happy life in such a beautiful place, and then you have this wonderfully majestic song playing in the background. Words fail me as I try to describe the raw emotion I felt when experiencing this, so I can only suggest playing it for yourself. It's one of the sweetest moments I've ever had while playing a video game, and I was sad to see it end.

The rest of the soundtrack is adequate for the job at hand, but nothing comes anywhere near the beauty of "Home in Florence". I find myself travelling back to Firenze just to walk around the city with that song accompanying me, and I'm not likely to forget such a wondrous experience anytime soon.

Maybe the Controls aren't THAT Good?

For movement, the controls are phenomenal. It's very simple to do, but it also takes skill to master. So you feel rewarded when getting from Point A to Point B. However, the seams begin to show when you get into combat. Every time I start a fight with a group of guards, I'm trying to get myself organized with the game's controls, but by the time I do so, the guards would have landed 2-3 hits on me. You first need to arm yourself, usually done by tapping the Left D-Pad Button (this equips your Sword). You then need to lock onto your enemy with the L-Trigger. You should then block with the R-Trigger, as your enemy is usually not waiting for you to start the fight. While this doesn't sound that hard, when you add the camera to the mix (which is what you use to lock onto an enemy), it's futile to think you won't be hit when starting the combat sequences. I'm sure there are players that have no trouble with this and pwn their enemies like there's no tomorrow, but I constantly found myself starting out with 2-3 Life Squares gone before getting a chance to fight back. That is also not fun.

From Jerusalem to Venezia

I'm enamored at the fact that Ubisoft Montreal is supplying an experience that has the player walking around a city of a different era. This isn't Middle Earth, this isn't some new Moon discovered in a universe far, far away. It's Italy in the late 1400's, and I get to walk around in it. There are citizens that are worried about the next Plague outbreak, workers that are fixing holes in a person's house, and bards relaying the news of a young assassin's exploits through the power of song. And for 99% of it, it feels completely authentic. The graphics are amazing, especially when you see the city's skyline while Synchronizing on top of a tower. You find it easy to become immersed, which is another reason why I think Assassin's Creed, as a franchise, is so special. No other game puts so much effort into making the player feel physically alive in a place that has existed in humanity's past. Altair walked around Jerusalem in AC1, with the Temple Mount sitting on the horizon. In AC2 we have Ezio climbing on top of the Basilica di San Marco in Venezia. For a designer, AC is one of the best games to learn about the idea of immersion, if not the best. As I said before about AC1, I sometimes find myself just walking around the city, seeing if I can learn something new about a culture that had existed in the past. And what game does that, and with such panache?

Your Game is About Assassinations, so Why Do They Suck?

Ironically, a game about assassinating people seemed to be given the least amount of polish in that department. The major assassinations in Assassin's Creed 2 are quite possibly the worst part of the game. Most of them involve simply chasing a guy around an enclosed building until you catch up with him and pull out your hidden blades. None of the level design was given the attention that the first game received. Ubisoft thinks they've given you the tools to create your own style of assassination, but there are too many variables. At some point a guard will see you. He'll then call his guard buddies and all you can do is fight and kill them all. That leaves the hapless victim to be easily stabbed without much thought or skill. Some of them are even blatantly designed that way, in terms of the scripting! I won't say it was done perfectly in the first game, but they really didn't even seem to try with the sequel. There was only one assassination that felt organic, out of the 10 or so that I've done at this point. That's not a good batting average.

My suggestion for Ubisoft is to make each assassination an open-ended puzzle with many ways to act out the solution. It should feel organic, but there needs to be an understandable and solid structure for it as well. This might sound like what they're actually doing, but it's far too vague for a normal player. The scripting might feature a simple pattern/puzzle, but as a player, I was unable to even see the existence of said puzzle. This kind of goes against what I liked about the first one, but it's obviously not working in this form. It needs to be fully developed and designed, instead of just assuming players will find the correct, and more entertaining, path to success themselves.

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

Those are probably the most important aspects that I wanted to touch upon. For such a great game, it's surprising to see so many lost opportunities. The idea behind Assassin's Creed is sound, but I really hope that Ubisoft thinks about and debates what it has created. Both games in the franchise are awesome games, but there are so many differences between them that a third game isn't an easy thing to plan. They've seen what certain ideas do to a game's overall design. People like immersion, but they also like blatant and easy entertainment. Do you give them something they want, or do you experiment with something they don't know they want? After playing both Assassin's Creed games, I have little doubt that Ubisoft will answer that question.

Another random idea I've had while listening to music:

2009-11-05T00:42:00.014-05:00

This idea came about after I watched WALL-E, more specifically the "Define Dancing" scene. EVE and WALL-E create a beautiful display of rhythmic motion outside the cruise ship, and it sparked my creativity once again. I downloaded the scene's song from iTunes, sat in deep thought for maybe 10 minutes, and came up with this.

Its name actually refers to the predicted form Earth will take thousands of years in the future. All continents will once again merge, creating a new Pangaea, or Pangaea Proximo. Sadly, an Earth with only one continent is not one you would want to experience. Just know that most life on this planet will probably end when this future comes to pass.

I'm sure there are some designers that worry about giving this shit out, but I really don't care. Although I hate this saying with a passion, ideas are a dime a dozen*. Give me a great song, a particular emotion, and I'll give you an awesome game.

*This is bullshit because it devalues all of our ideas. Who gives a fuck if ideas are easy to come by? That should never devalue or negate them, cuz they're probably awesome and are worthy of discussion. The problem is when you add more than one person to the design equation, as everyone has their own preference and will always want to make the game they want to make. But fuck 'em.

The Seeds of Castlevania: Verismo of Love

2009-11-03T23:06:00.059-05:00

Like a lightning bolt, it came to me. I had a vision. A vision about the strength of Love, and I asked myself: "What would a person do for the one they truly loved?"

That's the thought I had running through my head when I came up with my own vision of the venerable Castlevania series, aptly titled Verismo of Love. But I wasn't thinking about the generic sense of love we all see in the movies, where the guy unbelievably falls in love with the chick in the first 5 seconds. No, I'm talking about the one you actually feel. Like, for example, the love you have for your mother, or for your wife/husband. You actually feel something, don't you? To me, that's the most emotional relationship I know of. And I know a few other people that have expressed the same feeling. It's something inherent within us all. I wish I could explain it, through evolution or mysticism, but for now, it eludes explanation. Which I'm glad, cuz sometimes the mystery of it makes it more romantic.

So, how did it all come to be? Why did I even start thinking about this crazy game with an awesome name (that rhymes, btw)? In actuality, it all started with a cheesy horror movie. Not as biblical as I first portrayed, but it's interesting nonetheless.

For Hallowe'en, my girlfriend and I decided to watch Drag Me to Hell, a horror movie written and directed by Sam Raimi (Spiderman). I really don't like horror movies, mostly because of the gore associated with them. However, I'm also a big pussy. Even if there isn't any gore, bad things happen to good people, and I get close to sympathizing with our troubled heroes, where I actually feel their pain. Literally. And Drag Me to Hell was no different. It documented the last 3 days of a girl that gets cursed by an old gypsy, where our heroine is destined to burn in Hell for all eternity at the end of the third day.

----SPOILER ALERT----

Sadly, no matter how hard this sweet girl tries to release the curse from her damned soul, nothing works. She gets sucked into Hell at the very end of the movie, with the love of her life watching the whole scene unfold in front of his eyes. The movie was pretty cheesy up until that part, but that scene really got me, and I don't think I will ever forget it, primarily based on how it made me sympathize with her. This was a woman that pretty much did nothing wrong. She was just a normal, sweet girl that tried to lead a normal life. She was also a loan officer at a bank, and regrettably denied the aforementioned old bitch a 3rd extension to her mortgage (as if). Now, she did this to get ahead in her company (which was probably the writers' artistic message: follow the rules of capitalism and your soul is destined for Hell), but that's something we all do. Society generally dictates that we must compete to achieve. I know she done bad, and needed to learn from her mistakes, but her lesson was to burn in Hell for all eternity? Pretty fucking harsh, no?

And the saddest thing about it all was that her boyfriend, who saw actual fucking demons suck his love's soul into Hell, was about to ask for her hand in marriage. It fucking kills me to know that this woman is suffering a horrible fate for the bullshit reason cited above. I have a logical brain, and that just doesn't compute.

So, to end the never-ending sorrow that I was experiencing, I extended the story. It was the only way. She had to be saved, otherwise I wouldn't be able to sleep soundly that night. So, what would happen in my Extended Director's Cut? Well, I basically turned it into Evil Dead 2.

Our hero was her soon-to-be fiancé. After seeing his love get sucked into the bowels of Hell, he wipes away his tears and jumps in and tries to save her. Now, that's fucking hardcore. That signifies a massive amount of passion on the hero's part. I mean, this is Hell we're talking about: the worst place ever devised/written by mankind. Nothing good can ever come from going to Hell, but our hero feels completely justified in doing just that. He must save her. His life will be a waste if it's not spent in her loving arms.

Sadly, I didn't get much further than that. He of course saves her, hopefully with the help of a chainsaw hand, so all is well for the guy and girl in Drag Me to Hell. They get married and live happily ever after, with some demon-slaying on the side just for kicks.

Coincidentally, when my mind was going through this whole thing, I just started listening to OCRemix's newest remix album, Castlevania: Sonata of the Damned. The first song, more importantly the first 48 seconds of the first song, was what I was listening to, over and over again, when I came up with the true ending to Drag Me to Hell. It perfectly embodied the emotion I felt when I thought of our hero's resolve. It's emotional and demonic, but it's also energetic and campy, which was what I was going for, what with the whole Evil Dead 2 vibe. I seriously couldn't have come up with a better song myself. It was exactly what I needed to get the creative juices flowing. And seeing as how I was listening to a Castlevania remix album, I knew exactly where to put it: into Castlevania: Verismo of Love.

So with this emotion coursing through my veins (and phat beats filling my ears), I put my thoughts down on paper (Twitter):

My idea for the story would be simpler like the older ones. The hero's wife would be kidnapped and sacrificed in order to resurrect Dracula.

Nearing the castle he has a dream where his wife reveals she's been killed, her soul sent to Hell. Enraged, our hero runs for Castlevania

You get to Castlevania and with your rage, you fuck shit up. Out for revenge, you see Dracula flee to Hell. Most of game takes place there.

I would try to develop the wife more, to show the man's strength came from her, through her love/compassion/wisdom. She'd be a real woman.

I always liked that one part from Symphony of the Night, where Alucard had that dream about his mom. Very moving, even with the bad voice

I of course would let the hero rescue his wife. I couldn't let the player lose her, after creating a strong and loving bond between the two

Maybe each level is Dracula using a past memory between you and your wife, but turning it around to make it look like you failed her.

When I wrote those tweets, I was constantly revisiting that emotion I had when I listened to the first 48 seconds of that song. Over and over and over. Suffice it to say, music brings out my creativity. I tried to define what I was feeling and add it to the gameplay experience. And I think I did a pretty good job.

The hero in my extended Drag Me to Hell would be portrayed in video game form. He feels so passionate about his wife's soul that he's risking eternal damnation to save her. My buddy at work thinks the generic setting kind of dilutes that idea, but I seriously think it enhances it. Again, it's fucking Hell, man. It's not my fault it's used so often. And ask yourself: would you go to Hell to save the one you loved?

Amazingly, from what I've read, a verismo is an Italian form of opera that talks about everyday people and events, not the standard kings and devils and whatnot. Just ordinary people with ordinary problems. And that's exactly what I wanted to do with Verismo of Love's story. When the hero defeats a section of the map, he remembers the true memory that Dracula tried to taint. And all of the memories would be about something that he and his wife experienced together, like the birth of their child or their first date. Something simple where the player could relate, which resonates in their hearts more. And yes, I know it's not a true verismo when I cite Dracula as the main antagonist, thank you for bringing that to my attention, Mr Smarty Pants.

However, I won't lie, I just randomly chose that word for its badass-ness factor, and its association with music, which most Castlevania games do (Symphony, Harmony, Aria, etc). It's just a complete coincidence that its meaning is exactly what I was trying to express in Verismo of Love. Chalk that up to dumb luck, I guess.

So that's basically how I came up with Castlevania: Verismo of Love. It's not that complex an origin story, but it just goes to show you how simple it can be to come up with something cool. I got dragged into a cheesy horror movie, listened to an awesome song, and badda bing.

I would love to play this game, but sadly it will never exist. It exists only in our minds. I have a good idea of how the first area of Hell's map plays out like, but it hurts to know I'll never be able to play a Castlevania game called Verismo of Love. Now, I might be able to play a new game, one without the Castlevania name attached, but I guess we'll never know:)

What kind of game designer are you?

2009-09-08T23:30:00.009-04:00

My buddy recently gave me a link to one of Leigh Alexander's blog-posts on her stellar blog, Sexyvideogameland. In it she tried to explain why we all love Fumito Ueda's works, to a pretty agreeable degree I would have to say. However, she talked about one thing in particular that I've been thinking a lot about in the last few months. She briefly talks about the kind of designer Ueda is, with his background in animation enabling him to create a different kind of gaming experience. Same with the writers on Portal. Their techniques of expression can be applied to other mediums, and she flatly says designers that live by the D&D sword are filling to dangerous proportions.

Now, I won't say you should outlaw that kind of design (which she does not, let me clear that up right now), as there's always someone that likes that kind of design, but I do feel we need to branch out a lot more than we're currently doing in the video game industry. Most company owners and/or designers, when coming up with a new game, tend to start with familiar territory. It's usually D&D based, or something simple and explosive, like FPS's or 3rd Person Action games. Everyone wants to create something "awesome", which is rarely something new and unique.

I've created a few games at my company that were used for various projects, but they were simply designs I already knew about: puzzle games, in general. I've played a large number of puzzle games in my day, so creating a new one with an interesting hook isn't that hard, as I'm taking what's been created and then adding some new mechanic. It's not noble in any way, but the games are fun (surprisingly), so I can't really complain.

Now, if I wanted to create a brand new game, one that tries to introduce a new world or basic design for an established genre, what would I do? It's a hard question, but it relates to what kind of background you come from. Writers from the movie industry will want to create a game with a powerful narrative. People that love D&D will probably make a role-playing game, Japanese or Western-based. Mathematicians will make something like Sudoku. But, what would I make? What is my background when I have no actual background?

So I thought about what makes me a special game designer. And surpisingly, it's what I was thinking about when I was designing those earlier puzzle games I mentioned: emotion. The most basic form of communication a human being uses is emotion. When you're annoyed, you get angry, saying "Hey, you're annoying me!" You cry for someone to comfort you. It's simple survival mechanics we've had since time immemorial. People instinctively understand emotion, so why not add that idea to gameplay?

Amazingly, you can do this without having to work with narrative. I'm not a writer (even though I think I am), so I need to express this style of design through gameplay alone. I've done so with a few of the games I've worked on, and it's interesting to see this AFTER the fact. I never really had an intent to make a game define an emotion through gameplay, but it just seemed to happen. I will probably explain this by saying I listen to various styles of music while I write my designs. I will actually listen to specific tracks that evoke a specific emotion, which then thankfully transfer to my gameplay designs.

Some of my most cherished and emotional gameplay scenarios are directly influenced by the music that's playing in the background at that time. The final run on the Pillar of Autumn in Halo 1, climbing up Tower of Dawn in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, playing Metal Gear Solid 4 with "The Best Has Yet to Come" playing on my in-game iPod. I "felt" something while playing these scenarios. Fear, yet courage when driving my Warthog, renewed vigor to find Farrah and save the world, and sorrow to be in a place like this, killing people for no real reason. To create something like that, wow. It would be the highlight of my life.

So, with those memories close to my heart, I try to hit as many emotions I can successfully express through my gameplay, like urgency, awe, and even joy (but not the standard video game joy of blowing shit up, the more.... ethereal kind). I try to work with simpler forms of these emotions, as I don't have the resources to make a big game, like Metal Gear Solid or Super Mario Galaxy, where you can articulate those ideas through a 30+ hour experience. And I'm surprised at how successful I've been with my style! A lot of the people that have played the games I designed would get into it and enjoy themselves, directly based on its defined gameplay emotion, which would in turn create a new emotion for me: happiness!

So that's the kind of game designer I am. I don't care about D&D, and I have neither the chops nor the drive to write an epic novel about the intricacies of modern life in the Yucatan Peninsula. But there is one thing that I excel at and love to do: create an isolated emotional experience through gameplay.

Hopefully one day you'll get to play a big game from me that evokes an emotion, as that will be my most special of days:)

Also, if there are any game designers reading this article (ha, good one, Crono), what kind of game designer are you? Don't worry, you D&D lovers, I'm not a hater:)

Prince of Persia: Bullet Point Revisiting

2009-07-26T23:13:00.007-04:00

Really love the art style, and really appreciate Ubisoft Montreal for making the effort to re-establish the franchise in that way, specifically. Warrior Within and Two Thrones left a bad taste in my mouth.

Was initially upset to see the Prince's character use a contemporary style of dialogue. I prefered the realistic style used in Sands of Time. I got used to it, but I never would have used that style if I was the designer.

Loved the inherent relationship between the Prince and Elika, but wished Ubi did more with it. As time went on, I just wanted the Prince to give up that "funny badass" motif and talk to Elika seriously.

Was not a fan of the Energy Orbs mechanic. Completely took away the area's splendor by adding something that mechanical.

Liked the rollercoaster ride gameplay, but I'm not sure it should have been the game's sole gameplay experience. A little too senseless sometimes.

Did not agree with the people that hated the non-dying mechanic. I won't even give that opinion the chance to take flight and simply end it there.

Combat was a unique experience, and would like to see something like that elaborated upon again, maybe with a game that increased the play area:)

I was a huge fan of the ending sequence, where you sacrificed peace to bring Elika back. That's a hugely powerful event that was handled surprisingly well (ie, in gameplay). You were tasked with doing something you really didn't want to do, but knew the Prince did. That's a weird gameplay experience to be put in, and that's fantastic.

Loved how the DLC extended the storyline. But again, I wish the Prince was a little more complex of a character. He really needed to shut up and simply say, "I love you, Elika, and life wouldn't be worth living without you."

I'm assuming you can get Prince of Persia for a cheap pricetag now that it's 6 months old (and wasn't a huge seller), so I would suggest checking it out. It's not the best game, but what is these days. Hopefully I whet your appetite with this bullet-point revisitation. If I never played this game, I would be intrigued by the "end sequence" bullet point.......:)

WipEout HD Fury: Bullet Point Review

2009-07-26T22:50:00.004-04:00

Fantastic presentation added on top of the HD style. Love the main menu BG effects, as well as its music track.

Huge amount of content for $10: Detonator, Eliminator, and Zone Battle modes, with 4 great tracks from Pulse and Pure, and the 4 original Zone mode tracks from Pure (which are my favorite tracks for my favorite mode).

Some of the music is uneventful, and I don't 100% agree with the harsh "fury"-styled music. I prefer the sweeter sounds from Pure and Pulse. Fury's musical design sounds too much like Justice, and it somewhat clashes with its standard style.

Wish Noisia's "Machine Gun" track kept the main beat going longer. After 30 seconds it goes away and you hear nothing but mechanical music for the next 2 minutes.

Not in love with Zone Battle mode, or the Detonator mode. There's just too much game design added to it. Zone mode was amazing because of its simplicity. It's like the game designer took advantage of Zone mode's popularity and added something a little too technical. Some will love them, but I believe most of the WipEout fans will go back to standard Zone after the novelty wears off.

I will say, though, that Zone Battle might be a really awesome Multiplayer mode. Haven't tried it out yet.

Love the added L1-turnaround mechanic in Eliminator mode. It fixed the problem of going past all your enemies (ie, Pulse), and makes you feel like a badass when you turn around for a split second and blow someone away with the Rockets:)

Liked how they simply added a new campaign instead of incorporating it into the original HD one. Keeps the original game intact, which my OCD loves.

If you're a fan of WipEout and have HD, then you need to pick up Fury, plain and simple.

Narrative becoming as important as gameplay?

2009-07-16T21:59:00.017-04:00

Once again, Denis Dyack has put the gaming world into a tizzy. Via Gamasutra, Denis Dyack spoke at UK's Develop Conference, where he started his speech off by saying "Gameplay is not everything."

The Internet then exploded.

The site that the article was first showcased on, as well as the countless satellite blogs, had some of the stupidest fucking comments in response to this supposed tragedy, the likes of which only the Internet could muster up. You would have a few people trying to quell the disaster, but mobs of idiots have too much momentum to be stopped. So I wanted to take this time to explain the situation, to better inform you of the facts.

But before I get into my explanation of what he's actually trying to tell us, I'm going to lay down a few ground rules:

Just because Denis Dyack made Too Human does not exclude him from giving his opinion. Saying that (and a few developers have actually done so) shows me a level of ignorance I never would have expected to see from people in the same field as me. It's teetering on disgusting.
You should read the article FULLY before reading my rebuttal. In fact, you should read each and every article FULLY before commenting on sites. Headlines are edited for shock value and do not express the full extent of what the article is trying to say. People lose sleep over being misinterpreted in the media. Respect the ones trying to show you something new and/or informative.
When Dyack says narrative, he doesn't just mean FMV's. I'm amazed at how many people thought that.
VIDEO GAMES are not just games. I like to think of them as interactive experiences, specifically.

So let us begin. Denis Dyack has crafted himself into an infamous character/voice in the gaming community, but that's only because he has a strong opinion of what games are and where they're (hopefully) headed. He's credited as the creator of Eternal Darkness and Too Human, both very story-heavy franchises. So of course he's gonna express his concern for more extensive narrative in video games, which he has done so at the Develop Conference. He basically tries to say that narrative is an extremely important part of the video game equation. If you want to make a worthwile video game experience, you need to put as much (and possibly more) effort into the game's narrative/story as you would its gameplay.

Now this might sound crazy. Yes, video games are meant to be played, and their gameplay is what you play, but stop right there. As I listed above, video games are not simply games, like baseball or football.

Let me give you an example. Actually, let me give you a few. Would Metal Gear Solid be one of the most revered video game franchises had its narrative been stripped away? Would Final Fantasy? Would Braid? Would Shadow of the Colossus? Would Silent Hill 2? Would Eternal Darkness? I can keep going, but hopefully you're starting to pick up on what I'm trying to say.

You can have a good game based on good gameplay, but you can only go so far with gameplay before you hit a road block with whatever you're trying to convey in your video game. Let's take one of the examples I've included: Final Fantasy. The later FF's are filled with NPC dialogue, FMV cutscenes, and various other narrative techniques. And least surprising is what people most remember about those games: the plotline, or the authentic relationship between each character, which were more often than not created through its narrative.

Now let's look at the earlier FF's. They had pretty much the same gameplay, but were devoid of any real concrete narrative. Yes, those games were good, but were they as complex as the later ones? Did they have thick meaning, or immersive universes? I'm sure some of you will argue the fact, but they really didn't. Gameplay cannot express meaning in (ahem) meaningful ways. You need other ways to express it, which is where narrative comes in. It's used to explain the things gameplay cannot.

Sure, you can figure out a few ways to explain some meaning through gameplay, but it will not be as successful or potent when compared to techniques already developed for movies or books. Dyack tries to point this out, adding that music, architecture (graphics, I'm assuming) and poetry (in Too Human's case) helped create a specific kind of experience for the player. It all adds up.

I like to think of it as a different way. Think of gameplay as a pillar. It's got a strong base, and basically defines the experience as interactive or non-interactive. Now, you can do a lot with this one pillar, but how often do you see a building sitting on one pillar? Hopefully never, as that architect would either be a certified genius or an authentic wakko.

So, if you're trying to make a bigger building, you need more pillars to hold up its weight. In this diagram, we add MUSIC as the second pillar (sorry for the orientation, the uploading function sucks). Games like Lumines and Rez can be found in these kinds of structures. The experience Tetsuya Mizuguchi wants to create cannot be held up by just the GAMEPLAY pillar. It needs more than that. And the kinds of experiences that Mizuguchi creates are nothing short of spectacular and special.

Ok, so we got MUSIC in there. Now we need something more. I'm probably doing this out of order a little, but bare with me. Next we add in GRAPHICS. This helps express a basic form of meaning. A scifi game has a visual theme that epresses that idea. As does a military one. We have our general universe with GRAPHICS, but we still need more pillars if we're to create an experience that many gamers enjoy and that many developers want to create.

That last pillar is NARRATIVE. Now, with all major pillars standing up, we put our video game on top, to see if it holds. Games that are still holding strong under all that weight are ones I listed above: Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, Eternal Darkness, BioShock.

BioShock's actually a great example to use, just to drill the idea into your head. BioShock is an FPS set in an underwater utopia with allusions to Ayn Rand and objectivism. Take out that last bit and what do you have? A standard FPS, which would be enough for some players. But for me? No, I don't play BioShock for the FPS/RPG mechanics. In actuality, I wish there was less. So right there, that should show you the power of narrative. I still wanted an interactive experience, but there could have been less "interactive-ness" for me, to help emphasize the narrative that Irrational created.

That's the very essence of what Denis Dyack is saying. The kinds of games that some players/developers want CANNOT be created with gameplay as the sole emphasis. It just cannot be done. He's not saying you need to use narrative or music or graphics to make A game; just the ones that NEED them, like the ones cited.

Peggle doesn't need narrative. Super Mario doesn't really need narrative (but I sure fucking enjoyed the children's book scenario from Super Mario Galaxy), but games like Eternal Darkness, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, fuck, even Metroid Prime, need narrative to be what they ultimately are.

Just because he made Too Human does not negate Dyack's opinion, one in which I fully agree with. If you want an experience as tall as the Empire State building, you're gonna need some strong pillars to keep it up. And gameplay is simply not up to the task alone.

Another example, just because I don't think you understand the severity of the situation. My coworker and I have an argument over what was more important for Braid: its music or its graphics. I say the music conveys the emotion you should be experiencing, while my coworker thinks the graphics do the same thing but in a stronger and more blatant way. In reality, we're both right. Braid wouldn't be Braid if it had standard music or generic graphics. As I said before: it all adds up.

BIT.TRIP CORE: First 5 minutes - Bulleted List Review. Period.

2009-07-09T01:15:00.006-04:00

Awesome to see the same art style from BEAT intact
First level's song was underwhelming
Great, wish-I-thought-of-it-first basic game design
Love how the game forces you to change angles. Feels great to chain your hits perfectly
Brutal difficulty. Wish it would ease up a little, as I would like a "Chill-out" Mode
Kind of don't want to know what happens in the next level, if the first level's difficulty is anything to go by
Cool intro, with the 3 bit.trip mascots staring you down

Conclusion: definitely worth 600 Wii Points, but just know it puts hair on your chest and/or balls. Hope the next levels (or game in the series) showcases better music.

Holy shit this is amazing

2009-07-01T01:24:00.003-04:00

From the Ghostbusters video game:

And when you tap A to interact with it, Vigo the Carpathian talks!!! I even think it's the same voice actor! Oh man, I think I'm gonna have a nerd-gasm:)

The Defender of the Waggle

2009-06-30T00:03:00.007-04:00

One of the better writers on the net, Leigh Alexander, recently wrote a Feature article on Kotaku, defending the idea of Classic Controllers in regards to the advent of motion controllers being present on all home consoles. While she valiantly researches the topic with countless quotes from many East Coast designers, she doesn't really reach a climax to her argument. She did not put it bluntly as to why classic controllers need to stay in existence. It seemed most of her argument was denouncing motion control altogether, as if to say motion control was philosophically a fool's endeavour.

To this I say: don't look to philosophy, and grasp the simple. Of course motion control can't replace all forms of control. But that doesn't invalidate it. Commenters love to say the best games they've ever played were played with a controller, but that has zero relevance in this argument. What about those awesome experiences that are created with the Wii-mote, or Project Natal? Can you truly say that there are none, considering the Wii is clogged with shovelware and Natal isn't even out yet? No, you can't.

Many people say, if the library of games on the Wii is what we get when we add motion control to the equation, then motion control is the bane of all our existences. However, it's not motion control that did this. It's Nintendo's example that ruined Wii's chances for success in the mind of hardcore gamers. Devs realized what people play on the Wii (with help from Nintendo) and they capitalized on that fact. Hence, the massive surge in minigame compilations. Most ignorant people would assume motion control caused this problem.

Now, take out the shovelware. Assume Nintendo never released WiiSports, and launched the Wii with Metroid Prime 3 and PunchOut!!. 3rd party devs would have had a different idea of what constitutes a Wii game, and would have probably put more effort into making games that hardcore gamers would have enjoyed. Fast-forward 3 years later, and I'm assuming the vocal minority you find on Kotaku would be singing Wii's praises. We would be talking of that one amazing game we all played on the Wii, where it topped many a'gamers Top 10 Games of All Time list.

This is what I'm talking about. You can't negate motion control when it's only been out for 3 years, and its definition is merely created with shovelware in mind. That's unfair to what Nintendo was trying to do. The Big N knew this, as they cited FPS control schemes as one of the first examples of enhanced gameplay through the wii-mote. That was stated at the TGS the year before the Wii came out. It shows Nintendo was hoping for a wider range of experiences with the Wii, but sadly, they couldn't display a more potent example to achieve such a vision.

So now we have articles like the one mentioned. Now, I'm sure this is playing devil's advocate, simply bringing an idea that many would like to talk about. But I still don't think she really thought about it, or even formed her argument properly. One thing I can't figure out is if she was denouncing all forms of motion control or just Natal. She talked about how people need to hold something, but only Natal has that "problem". Sony and Nintendo have a controller in your hand.

And it's just funny to hear all these philosophical quotes from the East Coast designers, where's this flawed virtual reality. Yeah, I'm sure Msoft put billions of dollars into something that no one is going to like. They know there's a risk to Natal, but it's not so deep and useless as what they were saying. That's one of the bigger problems I see with some designers out there. They like to say the most complex statements, where only a few people really understand what they mean, but don't understand that Life and the people within are way simpler than that. Everyone is driven by pure emotion. And it's sad to say, but a lot of what was shown at this year's E3 was simple fun.

Of course, if she was saying something different, I apologize for my response. Sometimes I read without actually understanding. However, as I read that article, I didn't feel like she told me anything concrete. Why are classic controllers actually useful? Can we say controllers like the wii-mote will truly not work with all genres? Or are we just comparing with what has been done before and assuming it can't be done on the Wii? Same with Natal. Do we really know what developers will and can come up for it?

Take Peter Molyneux's Milo. That's an amazing demo for the Natal tech. Can that be done with classic controllers? Some of it can, but some of it can't. Should we take this away from prospective players because are brains are unable to truly understand it? Or because we're too used to what we've been using since 1985?

Frank Lantz likes the complexity of controllers, where it takes skill to truly master a game. Natal can't do this? The Wii-mote can't do this? Or are we assuming it can't when all we've seen is casual philosophies run amok?

Personally, it kills me that people assume it can't be done when they haven't actually thought about it. If they wanted to, they could make a motion control game that takes true skill to master. They just seem adverse to the very thought of doing so. And for that, everyone suffers through the loss of fun and with the continuation of ignorance.

Ya know, 7's and 8's are good

2009-06-25T00:29:00.006-04:00

I feel bad for High Voltage Software. No matter how good The Conduit is, there's no way it's going to live up to the hype. It's the game that every Nintendo fan wants to succeed, to justify the existence of their Nintendo Wii for the (hard)core gamers.

While the game looks like a fun Wii-based FPS, it doesn't include any genre-defining mechanics that everyone needs to check out. It's a standard shooter with possibly the best wii-mote controls for an FPS game, but that alone will not satisfy everyone. It's going to sell about the same as No More Heroes, which sold around half a million units, which isn't that bad. And I don't think HVS would have done any better had it been released for the 360 or PS3, as those consoles are filled to the brim with the same kind of experience. It's actually helpful that The Conduit is alone on the Wii battlefield, giving it more exposure, but I'm just not confident enough to say it will succeed like most Nintendo properties, most notably Metroid Prime 3: Corruption.

But, I will say this. The game has gotten solid reviews, ranging from low 7's to high 8's. In my book, those are great numbers. It's not perfect by any means, but that doesn't mean it will be a bad experience. IGN gave my all-time favorite DS game, Phoenix Wright, a 7.8 when it came out. If I assumed it was an average/bad game (which is what most gamers think of when they see those numbers), I could have missed out on one of the best games I've ever played. So who knows, maybe The Conduit will do something for you that you didn't expect, something that blows your socks off and changes what you think about for a short while.

If you give it the chance, that might just happen.

Another good example of musical gameplay

2009-06-24T00:57:00.000-04:00

What Music does to Interactivity

2009-06-23T23:59:00.015-04:00

I'm a big fan of Mirror's Edge. It has its fair share bad designs, of course, but I had an extremely enjoyable experience with DICE's FPP (first-person parkour) title.

However, when I first saw this trailer for the Time Trial DLC that was released a few months back, my head nearly exploded. This is what the game should have been like. Or at least, there should have been a mode that played like this.

You're probably trying to figure out what I mean, as the trailer shows pretty much the same game. Faith is endlessly running to her goal in the quickest way possible. However, there's one huge difference that no one seemed to pick up: gameplay-altering music. If you pay attention, there are certain points in the video that I provided in the previous post that make you think the game is a musical rhythm game. For example, watch from 0.30 to 0.35. Each piano note coincides with Faith ending or beginning an action, like grabbing the pole or jumping off a wall. This might not sound like a lot, but when you combine it with enjoyable music, it's like taking a ride on the rhythm train. There's only a handful of games that do this, and it's a completely different interactive experience.

The best examples of where to find this kind of gameplay would be Tetsuya Mizuguchi's offerings, Rez and Lumines. They each have their different take on how to fuse the player with the music, but it's that idea that defines the experience. It's all about the music. Each move you make in Lumines, there's a new note that perfectly fits the song, or "skin". Play long enough and you'll start to meld with the gameplay. Very few games do this, and it's one of my most cherished gaming experiences.

This is what I wanted you to know when I linked the Mirror's Edge trailer. Faith's actions are connected to the music, and it's creating something I would love to experience just once. It may be hard to really grasp the idea that I'm trying to convey, but I will explain it better by giving you a test. Listen to some really energetic music, stuff that gets your heart pumping and your mind racing. Ok, good. How long did it take you to start tapping your toes or fingers to the beat? I know for some of you it won't happen, but a lot of people get into the rhythm of music and express it physically. I mean, that's the very idea behind dancing. You're physically connecting with music.

Then apply that feeling to video games.

With a game like Mirror's Edge, the music, if chosen properly, would enhance the emotion and sense of motion that is associated with the franchise. You can see it in the trailer. You feel as if Faith is dancing to the music through her parkour acrobatics.

Hopefully you can see it. It's gameplay on another plane, one that's only lightly touched upon right now in the video game medium. Mizuguchi seems to be the only developer in the entire world that truly gets this idea. Every game he develops has the audio design integrated into the gameplay. Most devs simply get an audio engineer to come in at the end of a project and put the sounds in then, but Q? has those guys in on the very first design meeting.

I leave you with this idea. You like music, right? Well, what would happen if you "interacted" with it, and in not just a simple Rock Band kind of way either. Music is already extremely entertaining, as is playing a video game. Giving the player the ability to "play" their music, be it through Faith's jumping and climbing or through the simple manipulation of a Lumines block, is something all developers should think about at least once. Especially DICE, as they have a pretty good pitch video already:)

Props to the editor on the Mirror's Edge trailer.

A teaser video for what I'm gonna talk about next

2009-06-23T19:23:00.004-04:00

Damn PS3 Controller took a bite out of me!

2009-06-23T01:38:00.000-04:00

Was hoping my iPhone could pick up my finger's gaping hole, but alas, t'was all for naught:( My PS3 controller decided to take a bite out of me, with my ravaged skin dangling from its gaping maw. How did it happen, you ask. Well, it all started.....

Yeah right, like I'm gonna embarrass myself by explaining how a PS3 controller took a fucking bite out of my finger.

Welcome Back!

2009-06-23T00:03:00.001-04:00

I haven't done this kind of thing in a while, but I'm starting to realize that blogging and tweeting and other such social networking crazy stuff usually helps me to relieve some stress. And considering that I'm going out of my fucking mind, blogging about random crap will definitely get my mind off... stuff.

So, what do I have to talk about? What could you possibly want from a lil ol' Game Designer such as myself? Well, I hope you didn't hype this up too much, as I'm sure I'm going to disappoint. But we shall trudge on, like any good, warm-blooded American.

The last few weeks have seen a huge resurgence of PlayStation 1 era gameplay, with Final Fantasy VII and Metal Gear Solid being released as PS1 Classics on PSN. I'm a huge fan of Hideo Kojima's Metal Gear Solid series, so I'm not going to repeat what I've said about that series in this blog post. No, this entry I'm going to focus on the epicness that is Square's Final Fantasy VII.

When the game originally came out, I remember (incorrectly, I think) seeing commercials for the game, with Cloud desperately trying to shut some valve off before all Hell broke loose. It was in CG, but naive little me actually questioned: "This can't be the game, can it?" I had never seen an FMV before, so it was a shock to see SNES/N64 graphics get trounced by this newcomer system. There's no way the game could look that good. Right?

Of course I'm right.

Going back to the game now, I can't believe I doubted myself. FFVII, through 10+ years of forum trolling, has not aged well in terms of graphics. Blocky characters with simple textures. Now, I will forewarn by saying the game looks a lot better in the battle mode. Cloud looks like Cloud, and the summoning monsters/GF's/Aeons look amazing, even for now. I'm still amazed Square made their animations and effects as grandoise as they are, considering it was their first PS1 effort. And don't even get me started on VIII and IX's summons. Holy Yevon.

Anyway, when the game came out, it was all the rage. If you knew anything about games, you were talking about Final Fantasy VII. I had to get in on the action, so my buddies and I rented the game from my local Blockbuster. While the opening sequence was pretty action-packed, we had never played or even seen a turn-based RPG before. I couldn't comprehend not fighting when I wanted to. I was the biggest Nintendo-loyalist back in the day, so if an action game wasn't like Zelda, it had no point in my (ignorant) mind. So, once we got slaughtered by the very first boss (only because I had no idea what a 'Potion' was), we quickly pushed the game aside. Well, only after we figured out you can put some pretty disgusting words in the game by changing everyone's name:)

I never put any real time into FFVII until recently, when I picked it up the day it was released on PSN. And after coming to the very end of the game (I can go fight Sephiroth in the Northern Cave, but he currently destroys me), I can totally understand why people my age would hold the game in such high esteem. For as quirky as the game is, the sheer epic-ness of the story pulls it to the upper echelons of gaming. Having Sephiroth at the core of the story's plot, one in which the planet's very life is being threatened by multiple antagonists, was quite literally, legendary. And it didn't hurt to have such an awesome main character with Cloud Strife, a spiky-haired badass that has the biggest sword in mainstream literature.

The secondary characters are quite literally secondary, as they don't add much weight to the story, even the fabled Aeris/Aerith. Now, I can understand that seeing her death was a little emotional, especially from how Square handled the historic event, but she wasn't a very complex character. And even more surprising, her death is at the end of the first disc, maybe 15-20 hours in. If Aeris was developed more, and her death occurred near the very end of the game, I could see being genuinely upset about the situation Sephiroth put her in, but she was almost as simple as a symbol at that point, and a poorly thought-out one too. I really liked how Square presented it all (thumbs up for playing her theme while fighting JENOVA right after), but they forgot the most important part: the audience's connection to her. I didn't feel connected to her in any way, as she didn't have that much to say during the adventure. There were little hints of genuine character, but nothing as powerful as, say, Yuna from FFX.

Now, I already knew she was going to die from the countless "Games that made you cry" top 10 lists, so I may have been desensitized to it, but logically, I never would have felt that way just from how Square planned the whole thing out. It would have surprised the shit out of me, yes, but cry? Sorry, no. Good try, though:)

Aside from that, I've found FFVII to be an extremely enjoyable game. The battle system is simple enough for me to get into without regretting my choices, yet complex enough for me to actually think about what I need to do with my Materia. And when considering that the game is 10+ years old at this point, I have to give Square some props for making a first generation PlayStation game close to being timeless.

Now, if Square remade FFVII on the PS3, we could see how amazing the game can be if we infuse it with some Advent Children-style graphics:)

Well, that's it from me tonight. This was an enjoyable experience, and I hope I can repeat the process in the future. I know I have countless things to complain about, so I'm sure the next post won't be too far off:)