Crisis Core is one of the three big productions from the Final Fantasy VII 10th anniversary compilation. With the mediocre-at-best fanservice movie Advent Children and the horrible third person shooter Dirge of Cerberus, the compilation looked a lot like a big money grab. What distinguishes Crisis Core from the pack is that it's actually a roleplaying game - something where Square-Enix is still relatively strong. Action-oriented with real-time combat, sure, but roleplaying game nonetheless. It's a prequel with lots of familiar characters and appropriate amount of fan service, but it is also a pretty solid game. The main character is Zack, who was mentioned on several occasions in Final Fantasy VII.
1. How hard can hard be
Knowing that I was about to play a Square-Enix RPG, I decided to finally break my habit of playing most games on normal for the first time around and chose hard mode instead. Little did I know that the hard mode was in fact added to the North American version as an afterthought and the game failed to mention how hard the hard mode is. When I finally got pretty badly stuck in the game maybe halfway through, I got curious and checked from the source of all gaming information (GameFAQs). To my shock, the hard mode was no small adjustment - they had multiplied all monster stats by the average factor of 3.5 and up to 5. Whoa. A small mention in the difficulty selection menu might have been appropriate, huh?
Anyway, challenge is usually fun. What was not fun was that save point placement was sometimes very frustrating. But wait, it gets better! This game features unskippable cutscenes, yay. They are just unacceptable in this day and age. The game also does a really poor job of explaining its most important non-combat mechanic but I'll write about that under its own section. On hard mode players are really expected to really use that system to their advantage so a little more information would have been nice. Sure, it's kind of a JRPG standard that you'll need GameFAQs as a complementary game manual to actually understand how the game works. Just for future reference, not all standards are good.
2. Let's fight in real time!
In the Final Fantasy franchise, real-time combat has been reserved for spinoffs. Curiously they - at least the two instances I have played (Dissidia and Crisis Core) - have mechanics that are better than the main series' active time battle (prior to FFXIII). The system is not particularly special. It is more or less Final Fantasy VII transformed into real-time action. Actions are chosen from a menu using shoulder buttons and performed with X. This is system is okay and pretty much required given the number of available buttons on the PSP. It really only falls on its face with items. The item submenu should have used a unique icon for each item. Items are used relatively rarely so memorizing their positions in the menu does not happen automatically while playing.
Attacks in the system are very simple and in this sense the system was quite disappointing at first. However attacks do have appropriate hit stun, evasion is not overpowered, physical attacks do critical damage from behind and guard only covers the front sector (although rather generously). Because of these factors, movement and timing are essential to survival in Crisis Core, especially on hard mode where enemies really dish out the hurt. Because of hit stun, it is possible to pin enemies or be pinned by a chain of attacks. It's also a good idea that they gave evade a proper recovery time. In many action games, evade is generally quite powerful get-out-of-jail-free card, but in Crisis Core a poorly timed evade can lead to a nasty chain of back hits.
On hard mode the game really is surprisingly defense-oriented. A lot of the harder fights require preparation to guard against the most common element attacks and most debilitating status effects. Even poison is nasty in this game because poison damage causes stagger and interrupts Zack's actions. All in all, it is very important to not get hit. Zack can often pin down single enemies simply with his attacks but multiple enemies can get really troublesome really fast. This is often typical for games that have hit stun as a mechanic. For the delight of Devil May Cry fans, attacks are properly telegraphed, giving the player an opportunity to react before getting hit. Evades also have invulnerability frames during the animation.
I have one complaint. The game's auto-targeting sucks. Zack doesn't target the closest enemy, he targets the enemy closest to his line of sight. This is a rather poor mixture of targeting the closest enemy and manual targeting (hitting where you're facing). For example, let's say there are two enemies. One is really close and the other is behind it, on the other side of the battlefield. You evade the closer one's attack, getting behind its back in the process and try to hit it, only to realize that the targeting has switched to the far away enemy instead and Zack starts running across the battlefield. Fortunately you can cancel your attack by doing an evade but really, this should not happen. It also makes targeting specific enemies a bitch sometimes.
3. How random can we make this?
(Almost) every JRPG tries to add its own tricks into the combat bag. Crisis Core introduces Digital Mind Wave (DMW) which is essentially one big slot machine that's constantly running. Sounds very random, and it is too. There's actually two modes: normal and Activating Phase. The DMW has multiple roles: it controls the flow of battle with buffs; it acts as the game's limit break system; and finally it even controls character development to some extent. The most common are the buffs. They are short time advantages such as removing casting cost from spells or invulnerability to one of the two damage types, or even complete invincibility. These buffs are mostly to add a little variance. With zero MP cost you can go crazy with spells for a while. Immunity to damage is less useful than it sounds because the attacks still cause stagger but it can be useful in a tight place.
Activating Phase is more interesting. It is basically a limit break system that activates when the same character lines up on both left and right slots. If the third slot also comes up with the same character, a limit break is activated, resulting in a damaging attack or a bigger buff. They also give Zack a varying amount of HP, MP and AP back upon triggering. This is an interesting mechanic because it lends a hand to the player by restoring Zack at random intervals. Finally, before unleashing the limit break, Zack is invulnerable against all attacks for a short while. This has been done so that all attacks that were already coming out are carried out against Zack's invulnerability before the limit break activates. Although the player cannot directly affect this, it is a neat mechanic because it often opens up opportunities for attacking or getting out of trouble.
To make it just a little more complex, there is a chance for Activating Phase to change into one of two special modes, summoning and, well, special. Especially the latter one has even wilder effects which can give the player free items are level up their materia. The DMW is in charge of leveling up materia in another way: if two of the same number line up in Activating Phase, the materia in that corresponding slot gains a level. Zack gains a level if three sevens line up but this is not in fact completely random - the game runs a hidden experience calculator which eventually forces level ups to happen. Materia development on the other is completely random.
From the description it might seem that the system is truly too random to be of much use. It would be so if it weren't for DMW materia. These handy things can be equipped to make specific effects a lot more probable. There is one DMW that actually makes Activating Phase in general a lot more probable for a while. I found making that DMW more probable be equipping its materia a solid strategy for some of the harder encounters (remember, even limit breaks that you don't really need give free restoration and a breather). This sort of indirectly controlled randomness is in fact a quite interesting mechanic. By sacrificing some flexibility (materia slots), the player can manipulate the odds of getting free goodies to his favor.
4. Fusing for win
To my experience, when a development system is named Fusion it tends to be great. Atlus has demon fusion, there was monster fusion in FFXIII-2 and there is materia fusion in Crisis Core. It's a surprisingly complex system so it is very weird that the game doesn't really reveal its true importance to the player. It's portrayed mostly as a way to create new materia. However, it has a much more important function: raising materia stat bonuses. These start at very low values which makes fusion seem rather useless. This couldn't be much further from the truth - materia stat bonuses are the most important avenue for stat development. The system has a bunch of rules that are left for the player to discover (i.e. read from GameFAQs). It actually needs one key item from a side quest before it becomes really useful. That item allows using items as a component in fusion, which strengthens stat bonuses further.
Once the player actually figures out the system, it is quite clever. Because materia can only gain levels when they are equipped, there are also some serious considerations about which ones to wield - farming levels for materia reduces the number of more useful materia that can be equipped. The reason I like this system is that like Junction in FFVIII, it gives the player a powerful parallel development lane. Leveling up is just a general indicator of progress while real leaps in power are made by crafting materia with solid stat bonuses. This imbues character development with a lot of really meaningful choices for the player. It is what truly distinguishes action RPGs from plain action games.
Although I like the system, there is one particular problem with tying stat bonuses to equipped abilities. Because transferred stat bonuses in fusion are always halved, moving stat bonuses between materia is not feasible. This makes endgame builds rather rigid. At some point the player needs to decide which materia they will ultimately equip, and stack the big bonuses on those materia - and keep them there. There is still some flexibility: in fusion only one materia loses half its stat bonus (the weaker one). So by manipulating fusion results, it is possible to transform materia into other materia, but there are limits because of the system rules. Most importantly, the most powerful materia in the game cannot be transformed from any other materia type and fusing almost anything with them transforms them into other, weaker materia.
Overall, all the systems combined, the game does allow for quite a lot of builds. However, it does suffer from the Final Fantasy Syndrome. I just named this syndrome, but it is very prevalent in the series so the name is fitting. In short, a game that suffers from the syndrome has certain skills / equipment / whatever that are so obviously more powerful than anything else in the game that not using them would be stupid. In Crisis Core there is one peculiar materia called Costly Punch that is ridiculously overpowered. Immediately upon getting it, I reached the increased damage cap with it. It also ignores pesky things like enemy defense which makes it an ultimate weapon against, uh, everything. Curiously hard mode didn't become a steamroll with this materia because even normal enemies can stand and deliver ridiculous amounts of damage.
5. Bonus: Not so random encounters, or wallhuggers unite!
There was another curiosity about Crisis Core I forgot to mention. The game doesn't exactly feature random encounters. It also doesn't show the enemies on the map. So what does it do? Well, the environments in the game have these invisible zones where battle (with random enemies) commences. Usually, not always. Confusing huh? It gets better though: the zones typically do not go from wall to wall. Zack can avoid most battles in the game by tightly hugging walls while moving. It's uh... a very interesting solution. I kind of appreciate the fact that it's possible to not have to fight every single encounter in the game but really, invisible zones?
Conclusion
Crisis Core has surprisingly lots of depth. This seems to be a common trend in Final Fantasy spinoffs - the riskier ideas are realized in them instead of the main series. I guess it's a sound strategy from SE because the spinoffs are typically played by their core fans who are prepared to tackle more complex systems. It's still not Shin Megami Tensei complex in Crisis Core, but enjoyable enough to warrant full post-game experience all the way to the ultimate boss. I haven't gotten there yet but I have a good feeling that I will. The game also goes to show that SE really should include a hard mode in every single one of their games. Only difficulty demands players to learn and use various systems in these games.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
RPG Showdown: Abstract vs Simulative
More generally known as western vs Japanese RPGs (WRPG and JRPG respectively). I have been meaning to write this piece for some time now. After viewing the three Extra Credits episodes on the subject I got even more fuel into writing this. Mostly because I greatly disagree with episode 3. In short it claims that Japanese RPGs did not evolve in gameplay whereas western RPGs did (by taking influences from other genres). They make up the term "menu-based combat" to describe JRPG combat systems and go on to claim that it is old-fashioned and outdated. I have two problems with this statement: 1) I can point out numerous JRPGs that have very clever combat systems and 2) some of these are "menu-based combat". Combat system cleverness is a matter of opinion but trying to make a distinction between combat systems with some "menu-based combat" ridiculousness is flat out wrong.
Disclaimer: MMORPGs are left out of this.
Abstract and Simulative
It is true that Japanese style RPGs are falling out of favor. A big problem is their horrible quality of late. It is also true that they employ very different gameplay than their western counterparts. However saying that one has evolved and the other hasn't is not unlike claiming that only American board games or only European board games have evolved. The distinction between combat systems J and W RPGs arises from entirely different design perspective and is in part explained by the differences outlined in episode 2. In other words, WRPG combat systems have evolved into a form that supports the player's fantasy of being the character - they are simulative in the sense that they, like American board games, are rich with content matter. They want to evoke feelings that are relative to the overall game experience.
JRPG combat systems on the other hand are more like European board games in that they are often very abstract rules-first theme-later in design. The way the combat system plays out has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the game. This fits with the general approach that the player of a JRPG is a puppet master who is observing and controlling pieces in the game instead of trying to experience the world through a single character. Because of this, a lot of stuff that would make no sense at all from a simulative point of view are perfectly valid design choices for JRPGs. Stuff like giving commands from a menu to a bunch of character standing in a static formation and taking turns to hit each other. This removes a lot of limitations from system design.
Neither approach is better than the other. However, taking sides is really easy. Want an immersive in-character experience? Play a WRPG. Want to tinker with an abstract system? Play a JRPG. Let's take a closer look though. After that I can tell you why I prefer the JRPG.
Simulative RPGs
If we look at the evolution of Bioware games we can observe the simulative design approach pretty clearly. Baldur's Gate is pretty damn close to a pen and paper RPG played with figures - you can even see the die results! Although combat in Baldur's Gate does look more "realistic" than any Final Fantasy of its time it's still pretty abstract. Baldur's Gate plays more like a small scale tactical game than anything else. The game even runs a turn-based system underneath its real-time surface. Knights of the Old Republic implements a rather similar system but with less NPCs under the player's control. Unlike BG which had a very old school static alignment system, KotOR places the main character's alignment as a consequence of their actions in the game.
Jade Empire involved more direct control of the player's character and made the game real-time. Mass Effect, considered a paragon of modern roleplaying games by some, shows how far Bioware has come from Baldur's Gate. The player's control is quite tightly limited to one character. Allies can still be ordered to use their special abilities and to follow some generic orders but all in all they fight on their own and often out of the player's sight. The bird's eye view has been replaced with more personal participation. The game's mechanics reflect this; they've been designed to be plausible in their context. This is why Mass Effect plays a lot like a first person shooter. First person shooters have been the standard for simulating a firefight since, uh, Wolfenstein?
All of these games have a lot of situations where the player has the ability to choose the outcome of certain events. Likewise, they all allow the player to create their own character - their personal avatar in the game's world. The choices reinforce the player's ability to roleplay their character. Although the range of freedom is naturally more limited than in pen'n'paper games it is usually sufficient to give a decent illusion. Notice also how everything in the game mechanics has been given a plausible in-game explanation. When they changed weapon overheating to plain old ammunition in Mass Effect 2, they didn't simply change the mechanics - they also provided an in-game explanation for doing so.It's still stupid, but hey, at least the explanation exist.
Other titles reflect similar design principles. They all derive their mechanics from a more action-oriented genre. Deus Ex Human Revolution is a first person shooter at its core. The Witcher 2 uses a combat system that could be directly from a number of hack'n'slash games like God of War. Conveniently both of these games, just like The Elder Scrolls series, feature a lone protagonist. I don't think this is a coincidence. AI is tough and giving orders to AI characters is often an annoying burden to the player so it makes a lot of sense to not have a party at all in game that is first and foremost about the player's fantasy of being the protagonist. Having a lot of NPC characters around also takes attention away from the player's avatar. E.g. Baldur's Gate is not a game about just the protagonist, it is a game about the entire party. The story is about the protagonist, but gameplay treats all party members equally.
Character development systems are typically more artificial. It is not really possible to make such systems plausible, at least not in all contexts. Human Revolution gets away with it because new abilities are just new or enhanced implants which kind of explains how the protagonist suddenly gets a lot better at doing something. Most games are not as fortunate. Although some games kind of aim for realism with systems where skills get better as they are used, the time frame will never be anywhere close to realism. But that's okay, we're talking about games after all. There are two development systems that clearly form the mainstream in western RPGs: ability trees and use-based progress.
Since development systems are almost always artificial in some respects, it's not exactly clear why most western RPG titles land on one of these schemes. Ability trees can be mapped back to pen'n'paper systems where point distribution is a very common character creation and development mechanic. Systems where abilities go up when they are used have more base in reality, especially if we ignore the time frame it takes for the character to improve. One advantage with both of these systems from the simulative perspective is that they typically don't get in the way of gameplay. Advancing is simple and relatively straightforward. Relatively, because in some games (e.g. Diablo 2) the huge amount of synergy between abilities and equipment in the game requires serious consideration (although D2 does this in a rather fucked up way since there is no way to correct poor choices later).
Abstract RPGs
As was established in the Extra Credits episodes, Japanese RPGs should be considered a different genre altogether because they are not about roleplaying the player's personal avatar in a world but rather following and controlling the story of a group of characters. They can be considered abstract in the same sense that European board games can be considered abstract. It would be perfectly possible to take the entire gameplay mechanics of a fantasy JRPG and swap them with the mechanics of a scifi JRPG and the end result would probably work just as well. In other words, gameplay mechanics are very loosely tied to theme or game content. It's not that this abstractness naturally follows from being group-oriented. It's more like it is allowed because there is less emphasis on creating a roleplaying fantasy. Designers can throw in-game plausibility right out of the window.
Because gameplay does not actually need to make any sense at all from the thematic perspective, it is perfectly justified to have all combatants stand in a line and take turns to hit each other. Since the systems of modern JRPGs are making as little sense as ever, this tendency is clearly not just a consequence of technical limitations of the first gaming consoles. It's just a design approach where mechanics come first. Although the approach has not changed, it is rather lopsided to say that gameplay in JRPGs has not evolved. Even Final Fantasy main series - which is pretty much among the least innovative series in the genre when it comes to combat mechanics - has quite recently revamped its combat successfully. The series is also known for its hybrid approach to turn-based combat. While personally I consider it a disaster (except for the newest version) it brings about another interesting aspect of JRPG systems.
The stereotype of JRPG combat is the classic one that is completely turn-based and static (i.e. no movement). However, the active-time battle in FF series is not exactly turn-based but also not real-time. It's a temporal hybrid. Likewise, spatial hybrids exist. Shadow Hearts uses a fully turn-based system where the player cannot directly move any characters. However, all sorts of attacks and effects cause combatants to move around. This is relevant because area effects cover a specific shape only instead of hitting either just one target or every target. In Valkyria Chronicles and Resonance of Fate, only one character moves at a time - in full real-time in fact - while everyone else stands still but reacting by shooting at the active character. Resonance of Fate in general is a really good example of a unique and very gamey combat system. It's not perfectly executed and does get a bit repetitive towards the end, but it's definitely worth checking out.
Whether it is turns or real-time, JRPGs often have some gamey mechanics on top of the basic system. Modern Shin Megami Tensei games use press turns, extra turns granted by critical hits or hitting an opponent's weakness. A bunch of other games (e.g. Xenosaga, some FF titles) also use turn order manipulation schemes for great tactical effect. Shadow Hearts uses the judgement ring as a reaction micro-game for activating abilities and it is notable that it's not just a random addition but rather a full customizable subsystem in itself. Players who are really good with the ring can gain significant advantage in combat. Shadow Hearts also features combo systems which are another rather common mechanic. Typically unleashing attacks in a combo is far more powerful than simple trading of blows. Stagger systems are pretty much the same. These systems generally make timing of attacks an important factor in combat.
I could go on about examples for several more paragraphs, but let's just stop here. If you're not going to take my word for it, know that I can throw more examples at you. I mean I didn't even go into The World Ends with You or Valkyrie Profile here. So, point? The point is that these combat systems distinguish themselves from each other by using unique mechanics. It may seem that there has been no change on the surface. The real charm is in the details and subsystems which create a combination of game mechanics that is more often than not rather unique. Overall the design space is very board-gamesque in the sense that having a novel system is almost a requirement. This goes for character development schemes as well. More often than not, JRPGs have some kind of parallel development schemes. Level advancement is still quite common but typically it is not the only means of character development.
There's no need to go further than the Final Fantasy series for examples of this. Almost every game in the series has a drastically different character development system from the rest. The job system takes a new approach to character classes, allowing players to change classes and learn new abilities. Learned abilities can be equipped by other classes (but there is only one slot, you cannot have everything). The Sphere Grid in Final Fantasy X starts out like a multiple path skill and attribute tree but special spheres allow characters to teleport around the grid and learn abilities learned by other characters. In postgame, players can replace attribute bonus nodes with better ones, reconstructing pretty much the entire grid. One of my favorites is in FFVIII where the player can attach stacks of spells to character attributes in order to boost them. This system, called Junction, is a lot more central in developing characters than leveling up.
Again, these systems are very gamey. In games like Pokemon and the Shin Megami Tensei main series, developing characters is a game in itself with very detailed rules. GameFaqs is full of JRPG guides that show just how much detail has gone into these systems. The big downside is that these games rarely bother telling the player exactly how complex these systems are. Crisis Core for example has a materia fusion system that the game makes sound rather straightforward. Near the end of the game I looked at a materia fusion guide (in GameFaqs) and was pretty much blown away by it. So. Many. Rules. These are games for tinkerers. People also play them for their story, sure, but that's just to draw the masses in. The real game in JRPGs is tinkering.
Sidenote: Yes, I do realize that one reason why JRPG sales are plummeting is that their western counterparts have caught up and gone past in storytelling. A lot of people did play them for their story, especially the more mainstream titles like Final Fantasy. However the amount of detail in the game systems is a pretty clear sign of what the core audience plays these games for. That, and the fact that especially in some titles the story is clearly just an afterthought.
And the winner is...
It shouldn't be a big surprise that I favor JRPGs. I'm a tinkerer and I like games that have very clockwork-like mechanics. I find that by releasing themselves from constraints like realism and full immersion, system designers can come up with much more compelling gameplay. I do enjoy the stronger roleplaying in western RPGs and understand why a lot of people prefer it. I also see how the linear nature and naivete of JRPG stories is unappealing to fans of more adult roleplaying. However, I feel that the western RPG in its pursuit of fantasy has left behind the really gamey side (yes, the one where spreadsheets are involved). The playing experience is simply very different in, say, Mass Effect than it is in Resonance of Fate. The western RPGs I've played lately are a lot like games of another genre (usually shooter or slasher) but with more story and more freedom and some math in the background (but then again, character development is common in all games these days). There's absolutely nothing wrong with that but I just miss the more unique nature of JRPGs.
Conclusion
Although I stand behind this classification, it is mostly true for relatively modern games and even then there are exceptions. Dragon Age: Origins is reminiscent of Baldur's Gate - one of the gamiest Bioware games. Then we have Legend of Grimrock which is another blast from the past. Diablo, a game with tons of number crunching, now in its third incarnation. These games are generally further from pure player fantasy and closer to the abstract. It's also worth remembering that although the two genres have rather geographic names, western style RPGs have emerged from Japan - especially recently with the Souls games and even more recently with Dragon's Dogma. Western attempts at Japanese style RPGs are admittedly rarer but most likely not unheard of - especially if you are willing to look outside retail.
But to really summarize the point of this rather lengthy piece: the difference between the two RPG genres is their level of simulation. Western RPGs favor simulation and freedom to power the player's roleplaying fantasy. Japanese RPGs favor abstract gameplay to create nonsensical yet delightful and complex systems for players to tinker with.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Trine 2
This is going to be a bit shorter. Trine was a charming game, especially audiovisually. It might have not been the most balanced game though and the utility of its three characters was pretty far from equal.
The biggest problem was the knight who had almost zero utility in the first game. He was designed to do the fighting, but quite often the thief's arrows were able to deal more damage and were safer to use. Since the thief was also able to swing around with her grappling hook, for me she stole most of the spotlight. However, this being a physics-based puzzle-platformer, the supreme character was the wizard, able to not only move objects with telekinesis but also to create new ones out of thin air. Limitations were involved, but even with them the wizard was a puzzle-solving powerhouse.
The level design in Trine however enabled so much utility for the thief's grappling hook that I didn't need the wizard that much either. I guess it was more fun to just swing around although at times it probably took me more time in form of attempts than it would have taken to just create some boxes and let physics do the rest. This is all good though, allowing the player to make choices in solving puzzles. This is generally an advantage of physics-based games that players can always come up with solutions that developers did not think of. The possibility space in Trine certainly is not very large but the illusion is usually good enough.
Like any sequel worth its salt, Trine 2 changes things around a bit. It adds new kinds of puzzle devices into the game mechanics. This creates more variation but also I felt that most of these new solutions made puzzles more "hard-coded" to one solution. The thief's utility has been decreased by reducing the amount of surfaces that can be grappled with the hook. The wizard has also lost his triangle block which was the only object he was able to levitate around while standing on it. The knight still hasn't gained any really new utility tools and the thief is still pretty damn solid in combat.
The balance has indeed shifted but to what direction. I felt that unlike Trine, the sequel actually forced the player to use the wizard's abilities much more. Many of the puzzles were not solvable with other characters' abilities at all. The knight still has only two purposes outside battle: protecting himself with his shield and breaking things with his hammer throw (which might or might not have been new, can't remember) - both very contextual. Thing is, the wizard is the only character in the game whose abilities do not require much support from the level itself. He can always create boxes and planks. With four objects total, a lot of things can be done.
Balance problems always exist in games with more than one character or class to choose from. Of course, it is not too bad for Trine, because characters can be switched instantly and constantly. On the other hand though, being a puzzle game does by puzzle design dictate which abilities are more useful. It can require all abilities but rarely does so in equal amounts. The wizard clearly gets more screen time in Trine 2. Fortunately, his problem solution model has a lot more variance. Creating a stack of boxes is not a solution to everything. In fact, the last two or so levels in Trine 2 had pretty devilish design. This of course comes with a price - the more difficult you want a physics based puzzle to be, the more "hard-coded" it's solution is likely to become.
All in all though, Trine 2 is a somewhat better game than the first one. Both are quite charming but still have their flaws. I still think the knight could use some ability that makes him more useful. Hammer throw spots aside, there were very little places in the game where his abilities had anything to give to the solution. At least he should be even stronger in combat as he is still outdone by the thief in many situations. The biggest improvement in Trine 2 is the addition of new puzzle mechanics such as watering mystic plants to create new paths, and also the increased difficulty in later levels.
The biggest problem was the knight who had almost zero utility in the first game. He was designed to do the fighting, but quite often the thief's arrows were able to deal more damage and were safer to use. Since the thief was also able to swing around with her grappling hook, for me she stole most of the spotlight. However, this being a physics-based puzzle-platformer, the supreme character was the wizard, able to not only move objects with telekinesis but also to create new ones out of thin air. Limitations were involved, but even with them the wizard was a puzzle-solving powerhouse.
The level design in Trine however enabled so much utility for the thief's grappling hook that I didn't need the wizard that much either. I guess it was more fun to just swing around although at times it probably took me more time in form of attempts than it would have taken to just create some boxes and let physics do the rest. This is all good though, allowing the player to make choices in solving puzzles. This is generally an advantage of physics-based games that players can always come up with solutions that developers did not think of. The possibility space in Trine certainly is not very large but the illusion is usually good enough.
Like any sequel worth its salt, Trine 2 changes things around a bit. It adds new kinds of puzzle devices into the game mechanics. This creates more variation but also I felt that most of these new solutions made puzzles more "hard-coded" to one solution. The thief's utility has been decreased by reducing the amount of surfaces that can be grappled with the hook. The wizard has also lost his triangle block which was the only object he was able to levitate around while standing on it. The knight still hasn't gained any really new utility tools and the thief is still pretty damn solid in combat.
The balance has indeed shifted but to what direction. I felt that unlike Trine, the sequel actually forced the player to use the wizard's abilities much more. Many of the puzzles were not solvable with other characters' abilities at all. The knight still has only two purposes outside battle: protecting himself with his shield and breaking things with his hammer throw (which might or might not have been new, can't remember) - both very contextual. Thing is, the wizard is the only character in the game whose abilities do not require much support from the level itself. He can always create boxes and planks. With four objects total, a lot of things can be done.
Balance problems always exist in games with more than one character or class to choose from. Of course, it is not too bad for Trine, because characters can be switched instantly and constantly. On the other hand though, being a puzzle game does by puzzle design dictate which abilities are more useful. It can require all abilities but rarely does so in equal amounts. The wizard clearly gets more screen time in Trine 2. Fortunately, his problem solution model has a lot more variance. Creating a stack of boxes is not a solution to everything. In fact, the last two or so levels in Trine 2 had pretty devilish design. This of course comes with a price - the more difficult you want a physics based puzzle to be, the more "hard-coded" it's solution is likely to become.
All in all though, Trine 2 is a somewhat better game than the first one. Both are quite charming but still have their flaws. I still think the knight could use some ability that makes him more useful. Hammer throw spots aside, there were very little places in the game where his abilities had anything to give to the solution. At least he should be even stronger in combat as he is still outdone by the thief in many situations. The biggest improvement in Trine 2 is the addition of new puzzle mechanics such as watering mystic plants to create new paths, and also the increased difficulty in later levels.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Tetraic - Yet Another Game Jam Post Mortem
Stage organized yet another game jam. This time it was a Windows Phone 7 game jam in collaboration with another club. It was also my fifth game jam in a time span of 14 months. Traditionally I've written about my experiences and/or my game, and this time is no exception.
1. The Concept
Our theme this time was "opposites". I was at my friend's housewarming party when the theme was released. It's not really the best environment to come up with game ideas but at least I was able to ask a lot of people for different pairs of opposites. The game I ended up with uses opposites in a couple of ways but was more or less inspired by the possibly most ridiculous idea "left and right". My actual game idea originated from Triple Triad, which to this day is the best minigame ever. For those who don't know it, it's a collectible card game in Final Fantasy VIII with absolutely elegant gameplay. Cards are laid down on a 3x3 grid. Each card has a value from one to ten on each of its sides. When placing a card, it flips over any cards that have lower values on opposing edges. Keyword: opposing.
No one was really interested in my idea after the pitching session. Most teams had been formed before it anyway while I was at the party. Fortunately for me, a group of us went to get some pizza to further develop our ideas. I refined my idea while rest of the guys were eating and started explaining it in more detail. It sounded pretty crazy at the time. The concept in all simplicity was Triple Triad meets Lumines. Tiles will drop in square blocks of four. Each tile has a number on each of its sides. Upon falling down, a tile eradicates all tiles that have lower numbers on opposing edges. Blocks will break down like in Lumines so that tiles will never hover in the air. Tiles that have equal numbers on opposing edges form chains; if one tile in a chain is destroyed, the entire chain goes with it. The concept sounded like it had enough mindfuck to be worth a try.
There was just one little problem. Displaying numbers on each side of a small tile would look *messy*. First we thought to use different colors, but they would be rather hard to learn. The best idea won: use different shades of grey. It's easy to learn that the darker the color, the stronger the number. This also had another benefit which was discovered later. We judged that this project had work for only one programmer, which would be myself, so setting up the project was easy. Without even starting my laptop, I decided that there was enough of a plan to go with, and went back to the party. Here's a piece of wisdom: even though 48 hours is not a lot of time, quitting early on the first day is often a good idea. You'll have a much more refined idea of your game when you come back after a night's sleep and you still have a lot of time to work on it. Just make sure you really want to work on this idea before quitting and that it seems feasible to you, all things considered.
2. Tetraic
I love block dropping puzzles and their relatives. They are challenging to design and fun to play when done well. Here's the result from this game jam.
The working title was TetraBlocks (because the blocks have, well, four significant sides) and since the tiles together look like a mosaic, coming up with the final title was easy. The design on the other hand was only a partial success. The way the game was designed, i.e. tiles become active (able to destroy other tiles) every time they move, resulted in combos that made it really hard to lose. Next to impossible really. Nevertheless, the game is in fact quite nice to play and using shades of grey it is not actually that confusing. Sure, it's still a little hard to keep up with everything that's going on, but that's part of the design. Notice how using shades of grey allowed us to highlight chains with other colors.
In the beginning there was one glaring problem: due to my choice of mechanics a block that has a strong value on its bottom side will typically just smash through everything else. I had to implement a mechanism against this that was not very elegant: the bottom side is weakened every time it defeats another block. The less elegant part is that this doesn't apply for other sides (again for gameplay reasons). I'm still trying to come up with ideas to put challenge into the game without adding complexity and exceptions. The key mechanic itself is promising enough to warrant further design effort. This is another lesson for jammers: don't expect a great design from your game jam. A functioning concept is often enough and really all you'll get done.
3. Love debugging, or else...
Last time I was doing programming at a game jam I burned out pretty bad. This time it might have happened as well. While the game concept is quite simple in Tetraic, all sorts of rules for dropping and erasing blocks can cause a lot of bugs. And it did. I spent like half of all the time I had for debugging on Saturday. A few bugs took hours to solve. But somehow I didn't get frustrated like I usually do. The thing is this: when you are in the right mindset, debugging is in fact pretty damn fun and rewarding. Sure, you're still cleaning up your own mess but... try not to think about it too much. Everyone makes mistakes in programming - in fact, if you don't, then you're probably not learning much. Game jams are typically recipes for arcane bugs that can drive people insane. I always start with great intentions and good code design, but the end result is usually pretty far from it. There is not time for complete refactoring when it's called for.
From my experiences, the best way to deal with a tough bug is to share it. It doesn't matter with whom, just talk about the bug aloud. Explain what you think happens. Doing this will help you get your own gears moving. When explaining something aloud, your brain can no longer fill in the gaps that existed in your theory while it was only in your head. This also applies to design. We have a tendency to assume things work as intended, even though nothing in a theory or design actually takes it into consideration. In debugging, we think we know what happens in the code, when we really do not fully know. We assume it does what it was intended to do. This gets especially bad when you are absolutely sure that one particular piece of your code cannot possibly be wrong.
Of course it is always annoying to be unable to finish your game or polish enough because some nasty bug takes away hours of your development time. But this is what happens in game jams so learn to deal with it. Of course, having programming experience does help tremendously and even though starting with great code design is usually a vain attempt to keep things organized, it does always help. In particular, object-oriented programming is a staple in game development. Coding too many interactions into one object is a recipe for disaster. Finding the culprit is so much easier if every one of your screen object maps into a code object. It is also so much easier to modify game rules if all pieces act independently. Most importantly though, remember that debugging can also be fun.
Conclusion
When I have the time, I'll try and continue development of Tetraic. Turning it into a fully functional design seems like a fun challenge. I'll probably port if from WP7 to HTML5. I don't even own a Windows Phone and block dropping games are much better with a gamepad or keyboard than touch screen. With all these game jams and promising prototypes it's just getting hard to decide which one to work on. Oh and the next game jam is like three months away...
1. The Concept
Our theme this time was "opposites". I was at my friend's housewarming party when the theme was released. It's not really the best environment to come up with game ideas but at least I was able to ask a lot of people for different pairs of opposites. The game I ended up with uses opposites in a couple of ways but was more or less inspired by the possibly most ridiculous idea "left and right". My actual game idea originated from Triple Triad, which to this day is the best minigame ever. For those who don't know it, it's a collectible card game in Final Fantasy VIII with absolutely elegant gameplay. Cards are laid down on a 3x3 grid. Each card has a value from one to ten on each of its sides. When placing a card, it flips over any cards that have lower values on opposing edges. Keyword: opposing.
No one was really interested in my idea after the pitching session. Most teams had been formed before it anyway while I was at the party. Fortunately for me, a group of us went to get some pizza to further develop our ideas. I refined my idea while rest of the guys were eating and started explaining it in more detail. It sounded pretty crazy at the time. The concept in all simplicity was Triple Triad meets Lumines. Tiles will drop in square blocks of four. Each tile has a number on each of its sides. Upon falling down, a tile eradicates all tiles that have lower numbers on opposing edges. Blocks will break down like in Lumines so that tiles will never hover in the air. Tiles that have equal numbers on opposing edges form chains; if one tile in a chain is destroyed, the entire chain goes with it. The concept sounded like it had enough mindfuck to be worth a try.
There was just one little problem. Displaying numbers on each side of a small tile would look *messy*. First we thought to use different colors, but they would be rather hard to learn. The best idea won: use different shades of grey. It's easy to learn that the darker the color, the stronger the number. This also had another benefit which was discovered later. We judged that this project had work for only one programmer, which would be myself, so setting up the project was easy. Without even starting my laptop, I decided that there was enough of a plan to go with, and went back to the party. Here's a piece of wisdom: even though 48 hours is not a lot of time, quitting early on the first day is often a good idea. You'll have a much more refined idea of your game when you come back after a night's sleep and you still have a lot of time to work on it. Just make sure you really want to work on this idea before quitting and that it seems feasible to you, all things considered.
2. Tetraic
I love block dropping puzzles and their relatives. They are challenging to design and fun to play when done well. Here's the result from this game jam.
The working title was TetraBlocks (because the blocks have, well, four significant sides) and since the tiles together look like a mosaic, coming up with the final title was easy. The design on the other hand was only a partial success. The way the game was designed, i.e. tiles become active (able to destroy other tiles) every time they move, resulted in combos that made it really hard to lose. Next to impossible really. Nevertheless, the game is in fact quite nice to play and using shades of grey it is not actually that confusing. Sure, it's still a little hard to keep up with everything that's going on, but that's part of the design. Notice how using shades of grey allowed us to highlight chains with other colors.
In the beginning there was one glaring problem: due to my choice of mechanics a block that has a strong value on its bottom side will typically just smash through everything else. I had to implement a mechanism against this that was not very elegant: the bottom side is weakened every time it defeats another block. The less elegant part is that this doesn't apply for other sides (again for gameplay reasons). I'm still trying to come up with ideas to put challenge into the game without adding complexity and exceptions. The key mechanic itself is promising enough to warrant further design effort. This is another lesson for jammers: don't expect a great design from your game jam. A functioning concept is often enough and really all you'll get done.
3. Love debugging, or else...
Last time I was doing programming at a game jam I burned out pretty bad. This time it might have happened as well. While the game concept is quite simple in Tetraic, all sorts of rules for dropping and erasing blocks can cause a lot of bugs. And it did. I spent like half of all the time I had for debugging on Saturday. A few bugs took hours to solve. But somehow I didn't get frustrated like I usually do. The thing is this: when you are in the right mindset, debugging is in fact pretty damn fun and rewarding. Sure, you're still cleaning up your own mess but... try not to think about it too much. Everyone makes mistakes in programming - in fact, if you don't, then you're probably not learning much. Game jams are typically recipes for arcane bugs that can drive people insane. I always start with great intentions and good code design, but the end result is usually pretty far from it. There is not time for complete refactoring when it's called for.
From my experiences, the best way to deal with a tough bug is to share it. It doesn't matter with whom, just talk about the bug aloud. Explain what you think happens. Doing this will help you get your own gears moving. When explaining something aloud, your brain can no longer fill in the gaps that existed in your theory while it was only in your head. This also applies to design. We have a tendency to assume things work as intended, even though nothing in a theory or design actually takes it into consideration. In debugging, we think we know what happens in the code, when we really do not fully know. We assume it does what it was intended to do. This gets especially bad when you are absolutely sure that one particular piece of your code cannot possibly be wrong.
Of course it is always annoying to be unable to finish your game or polish enough because some nasty bug takes away hours of your development time. But this is what happens in game jams so learn to deal with it. Of course, having programming experience does help tremendously and even though starting with great code design is usually a vain attempt to keep things organized, it does always help. In particular, object-oriented programming is a staple in game development. Coding too many interactions into one object is a recipe for disaster. Finding the culprit is so much easier if every one of your screen object maps into a code object. It is also so much easier to modify game rules if all pieces act independently. Most importantly though, remember that debugging can also be fun.
Conclusion
When I have the time, I'll try and continue development of Tetraic. Turning it into a fully functional design seems like a fun challenge. I'll probably port if from WP7 to HTML5. I don't even own a Windows Phone and block dropping games are much better with a gamepad or keyboard than touch screen. With all these game jams and promising prototypes it's just getting hard to decide which one to work on. Oh and the next game jam is like three months away...
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
The Last Story
This game is one of the two reasons I bought a Wii recently. The other one is of course Xenoblade Chronicles which I'm looking forward to playing later this year. Being a JRPG buff is pretty rough these days, so I'll take anything I can get, even if it means buying more consoles. The Last Story has a promising premise: it would be an RPG that emphasizes story and characters. Sure enough, it does. However, as usual, I will be sidestepping the story of the game and focus on its distinguishing game mechanics and other design features.
1. How to pace a game
Pacing a game is tricky business. One way to think about a good curve for RPGs could be: calm, anticipation, excitement, absorption. I believe there needs to be all of these for a game to be really solid. It's not a guideline pattern or anything, but these things need to be present. Keeping this curve in mind, we can take a look at how The Last Story paces itself. The game truly emphasizes its story. On a scale that it actually cuts out most traveling that is typically done in RPGs. There are no scenic routes from scene to scene in The Last Story, the game just skips on to the next one. This solution was fine at first. Towards the end I felt I was being rushed through the story. The game robbed me from any chance to calm absorption.
Then again, as you will soon find out, I didn't particularly enjoy the game's fighting system, so part of me was relieved to skip unnecessary traveling. There are no random encounters in The Last Story either. Every encounter is planned (and mandatory). Okay, so they provide these summoning circles where you can summon enemies to gain experience if somehow your characters are underleveled (which should not be possible) This again is kind of double-edged. Encounters in the game tend to be overdesigned to the point where they are puzzles. Very simple puzzles with AI characters constantly giving hints what to do, but puzzles nevertheless. This solution makes every battle an event in the game's story. This with the lack of traveling time through scenery makes the game feel too rushed and makes game events a bit disconnected. This is partially remedied by the fact that the characters do a lot less traveling than in a typical RPG.
2. Real time combat, ver XYZ
The Last Story belongs to the real-time combat camp of modern RPGs. In general, making a good real-time combat system is tricky. Star Ocean 3 did a marvelous job, but most of the time turn-based systems beat the crap out of half-hearted real-time systems. There is a hell of a lot more variables in real-time systems than turn-based. Turns create a comfortable order for things. Real-time systems need to implement all sorts of rules just to make the system core stable enough. Attack delays, hit stuns, hit boxes and whatnot become a significant design problem. Action-adventure game designers wrestle with these problems but RPG designers have an additional burden to consider. Characters in RPGs usually have a much wider repertoire of abilities (in fact, if they don't, the game probably is not very good).
The Last Story does not do a very good job. Basic fighting is simply repeating the same attack endlessly, occasionally stopping to block or dodge. Crowd-control is oversimplified: the player has an ability which makes every enemy target the main character. This ability also makes enemies slower, so using it is pretty much a no-brainer. Special abilities are limited by recharge times. The same bar is also used for direct command, which is the only way to give orders to AI-controlled allies. Spells have casting times and casters can be interrupted. Overall the system core is mostly strategically sound but fails in execution. Most importantly, battles are usually very boring to play. There's a significant lack of variety in what the player can do.
The game can feature as many as five AI allies at the same time. The going gets rather chaotic, and because the game is often not very hard, battles will solve themselves regardless of how well or poorly the player does. I also lamented the lack of a minimap or radar showing where enemies are. The battle areas are quite large, and sometimes I found myself wondering where the last enemies were. This might have been remedied by making the camera controls better or by having a better target locking system.
The Last Story is not entirely without good ideas though. The game's magic system has a feature called circles. Each spell leaves a circle on the field. These circles do various effects. Attack spells leave a circle that imbues attacks with the spell's element and healing circles do what you'd expect them to do. Enemies can also cast poison and damage circles. In theory this means that circles can be used to create optimal conditions on the battlefield. In reality, the element circles are pretty hard to utilize because AI allies will be spamming whatever spell they know, and each of them only knows one element. Typically this means that against a tougher enemy, the fight will happen in a mess of two or three overlapping circles and attacking with the right element becomes impossible. Healing circles appear around their caster, which makes them often appear far away from the battle.
In truth, the best use for circles is diffusing them. The main character can do this via his special abilities. Diffusing a circle creates an area effect which is typically a debuff. Healing circles diffuse into instant healing of all characters and one attack spell diffuses into a buff that shields against magic. The diffusion mechanic is also pretty good in theory, but like the circle system itself, it also lacks in execution. There's not much use for these effects. A few boss fights aside, they are not really needed. There's only like five different circles in the entire game anyway, which is way too low. The game tries its best to create variation in combat through its designed encounters but way too often the battles are just your usual hack and slash which gets very old very fast. Only the final boss of the game demands actual strategy from the player. At least a little.
Conclusion
The Last Story shows a lot of promise but fails to deliver. While yes, the story and characters are quite good as advertised, the game's design fails on many accounts. On top of it all, the game uses a 100% linear character development scheme with laughably limited number of abilities available to the characters. Equipment upgrading is not much better. Each weapon or armor has exactly one special ability which is mostly a boost to same stat or effect. I have to say I expected more, although Mistwalker does not really have a shining record. Now I'll really think twice before playing their next title, if there ever will be one.
1. How to pace a game
Pacing a game is tricky business. One way to think about a good curve for RPGs could be: calm, anticipation, excitement, absorption. I believe there needs to be all of these for a game to be really solid. It's not a guideline pattern or anything, but these things need to be present. Keeping this curve in mind, we can take a look at how The Last Story paces itself. The game truly emphasizes its story. On a scale that it actually cuts out most traveling that is typically done in RPGs. There are no scenic routes from scene to scene in The Last Story, the game just skips on to the next one. This solution was fine at first. Towards the end I felt I was being rushed through the story. The game robbed me from any chance to calm absorption.
Then again, as you will soon find out, I didn't particularly enjoy the game's fighting system, so part of me was relieved to skip unnecessary traveling. There are no random encounters in The Last Story either. Every encounter is planned (and mandatory). Okay, so they provide these summoning circles where you can summon enemies to gain experience if somehow your characters are underleveled (which should not be possible) This again is kind of double-edged. Encounters in the game tend to be overdesigned to the point where they are puzzles. Very simple puzzles with AI characters constantly giving hints what to do, but puzzles nevertheless. This solution makes every battle an event in the game's story. This with the lack of traveling time through scenery makes the game feel too rushed and makes game events a bit disconnected. This is partially remedied by the fact that the characters do a lot less traveling than in a typical RPG.
2. Real time combat, ver XYZ
The Last Story belongs to the real-time combat camp of modern RPGs. In general, making a good real-time combat system is tricky. Star Ocean 3 did a marvelous job, but most of the time turn-based systems beat the crap out of half-hearted real-time systems. There is a hell of a lot more variables in real-time systems than turn-based. Turns create a comfortable order for things. Real-time systems need to implement all sorts of rules just to make the system core stable enough. Attack delays, hit stuns, hit boxes and whatnot become a significant design problem. Action-adventure game designers wrestle with these problems but RPG designers have an additional burden to consider. Characters in RPGs usually have a much wider repertoire of abilities (in fact, if they don't, the game probably is not very good).
The Last Story does not do a very good job. Basic fighting is simply repeating the same attack endlessly, occasionally stopping to block or dodge. Crowd-control is oversimplified: the player has an ability which makes every enemy target the main character. This ability also makes enemies slower, so using it is pretty much a no-brainer. Special abilities are limited by recharge times. The same bar is also used for direct command, which is the only way to give orders to AI-controlled allies. Spells have casting times and casters can be interrupted. Overall the system core is mostly strategically sound but fails in execution. Most importantly, battles are usually very boring to play. There's a significant lack of variety in what the player can do.
The game can feature as many as five AI allies at the same time. The going gets rather chaotic, and because the game is often not very hard, battles will solve themselves regardless of how well or poorly the player does. I also lamented the lack of a minimap or radar showing where enemies are. The battle areas are quite large, and sometimes I found myself wondering where the last enemies were. This might have been remedied by making the camera controls better or by having a better target locking system.
The Last Story is not entirely without good ideas though. The game's magic system has a feature called circles. Each spell leaves a circle on the field. These circles do various effects. Attack spells leave a circle that imbues attacks with the spell's element and healing circles do what you'd expect them to do. Enemies can also cast poison and damage circles. In theory this means that circles can be used to create optimal conditions on the battlefield. In reality, the element circles are pretty hard to utilize because AI allies will be spamming whatever spell they know, and each of them only knows one element. Typically this means that against a tougher enemy, the fight will happen in a mess of two or three overlapping circles and attacking with the right element becomes impossible. Healing circles appear around their caster, which makes them often appear far away from the battle.
In truth, the best use for circles is diffusing them. The main character can do this via his special abilities. Diffusing a circle creates an area effect which is typically a debuff. Healing circles diffuse into instant healing of all characters and one attack spell diffuses into a buff that shields against magic. The diffusion mechanic is also pretty good in theory, but like the circle system itself, it also lacks in execution. There's not much use for these effects. A few boss fights aside, they are not really needed. There's only like five different circles in the entire game anyway, which is way too low. The game tries its best to create variation in combat through its designed encounters but way too often the battles are just your usual hack and slash which gets very old very fast. Only the final boss of the game demands actual strategy from the player. At least a little.
Conclusion
The Last Story shows a lot of promise but fails to deliver. While yes, the story and characters are quite good as advertised, the game's design fails on many accounts. On top of it all, the game uses a 100% linear character development scheme with laughably limited number of abilities available to the characters. Equipment upgrading is not much better. Each weapon or armor has exactly one special ability which is mostly a boost to same stat or effect. I have to say I expected more, although Mistwalker does not really have a shining record. Now I'll really think twice before playing their next title, if there ever will be one.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Deus Ex Human Revolution
Around the time this game was released I decided to play, for the first time, the original Deus Ex so that I could eventually play the Human Revolution and look at it from the proper perspective. Playing both of these games for the first time within half a year of each other provided an interesting viewpoint. Games, even really good ones, have come a long way in ten years. Human Revolution is yet another game that does a lot of things right. As did the original at its time no doubt.
1. Stealth action, finally done right
I have never been a big fan of stealth games. In some contexts I'm down with it, but extended periods of avoiding gazes is too often an experiment in frustration. While Deus Ex and also Human Revolution have gained praise for offering the player choices, the emphasis is on stealth action. Human Revolution in particular rewards being undetected with both experience points and game achievements. The firefights can get pretty brutal too.
Gameplay that emphasizes stealth has certain unique challenges related to uncertainty. For instance, it is highly important for the player to be able to see which way enemies are facing. While it might be realistic not to show any aids in this, going entirely without aids is really frustrating. Human Revolution uses a radar which shows all enemies as long triangles, making it trivial to figure out which way they are looking. Augmentations can be bought to let the player see the enemies' cones of vision in the field, which can provide extra help for moving around undetected. However, I felt the radar was sufficient enough. It's worth noting that without it I would have just shot my way though the game. Which is exactly what I did in the original Deus Ex.
Other source of uncertainty, resident in first person games, is the question "is my character hidden?". This is not always clear because the character's dimensions are not visible to the player. Human Revolution provides a graceful solution to the problem: when the character enters cover, the camera backs away and shows a third person view of the situation. Furthermore, the game only allows the player to take cover behind objects that are in fact large enough to hide the protagonist. It even has smooth mechanics for moving from cover to cover in such a way that the main character is guaranteed to stay in cover at all times and move silently. The third person view also allows the player an unrealistic but much needed ability to see what's going on on the other side of the cover.
Much like Assassin's Creed which uses automation to portray the protagonist's superior abilities and allow the player to focus on planning, the availability of information in Human Revolution does the same. They can even get away with this lack of realism. After all, the game is about human augmentation and all abilities are explained through them. Most importantly, sneaking past enemies and taking them down unseen is highly satisfying.
Admittedly Human Revolution might not be the first game to all this right, but it is in my experience. I admit that I haven't played Metal Gear Solid games much because of the abysmal controls and camera view in MGS2.
2. Inventory, ammo and what is this
The core gameplay of Human Revolution is rock solid. That doesn't mean the game would be entirely without flaws. Let's start with the antique inventory. It is true that slot-based inventory has been a staple in games since - I don't know, forever? - but I'm inclined to think that it's not a very modern solution. There has to be a better way than playing tetris with different sized rectangles on a grid. I have never liked playing around with the inventory in games, and often these limitations of carrying capacity feel really artificial. It cannot be a question of realism because these systems never are realistic. Game balance is the more likely reason to limit what the player can have with them. But why the grid? It makes no sense. A list is much nicer. You can still have a limit on how many virtual slots the character can carry, and have a number for each item to tell the player how many slots it takes. If you really want that grid then please at least give me a good automatic sorting system.
The weirdest thing in both Deus Ex and Human Revolution is the clip size of weapons. Clips in this world are ridiculously small. Semiautomatic pistol with 6 bullet clips? Combat rifle that can hold 20 at a time? You got to be kidding me. I don't even find a game balance justification for this one. The game does its best to support multiple playing styles, but constant reloading really limits options in combat. It also just feels wrong. This is supposed to be the future, so how come they cannot build decent weapons? There was also a bit of a power imbalance between lethal and non-lethal weapons. A single hit from any non-lethal weapon is guaranteed to incapacitate the target, but against some enemies a headshot from a sniper rifle is not.
Conclusion
Human Revolution is a really successful game and a clear improvement over its legendary ancestor from a modern player's point of view. The game had a solid pacing with enough dialogue between action scenes. Levels in the game were not too huge and didn't start to drag at any point. The persuasion system was good, even though I didn't mention it in detail. I did find a it a bit disappointing that just like in the original, the player simply decided the game's ending in the final moments.
There was also the issue of boss fights which were not really suitable for the game. They've gotten a lot of fan rage for a reason. Forcing the player to fight rather deadly enemies in a game where it is possible to put everything into stealth abilities is not a good idea. However I actually didn't find these fights very hard. I just applied a lot of explosives to the problem and it went away. Still, the boss fights really don't fit into the game's general feel. The original allowed players to circumvent at least some boss fights (it didn't have many anyway) and that was a much better solution.
But yeah, I liked Human Revolution. Enough to get its pricey DLC Missing Link and I have to say that it was also very enjoyable.
1. Stealth action, finally done right
I have never been a big fan of stealth games. In some contexts I'm down with it, but extended periods of avoiding gazes is too often an experiment in frustration. While Deus Ex and also Human Revolution have gained praise for offering the player choices, the emphasis is on stealth action. Human Revolution in particular rewards being undetected with both experience points and game achievements. The firefights can get pretty brutal too.
Gameplay that emphasizes stealth has certain unique challenges related to uncertainty. For instance, it is highly important for the player to be able to see which way enemies are facing. While it might be realistic not to show any aids in this, going entirely without aids is really frustrating. Human Revolution uses a radar which shows all enemies as long triangles, making it trivial to figure out which way they are looking. Augmentations can be bought to let the player see the enemies' cones of vision in the field, which can provide extra help for moving around undetected. However, I felt the radar was sufficient enough. It's worth noting that without it I would have just shot my way though the game. Which is exactly what I did in the original Deus Ex.
Other source of uncertainty, resident in first person games, is the question "is my character hidden?". This is not always clear because the character's dimensions are not visible to the player. Human Revolution provides a graceful solution to the problem: when the character enters cover, the camera backs away and shows a third person view of the situation. Furthermore, the game only allows the player to take cover behind objects that are in fact large enough to hide the protagonist. It even has smooth mechanics for moving from cover to cover in such a way that the main character is guaranteed to stay in cover at all times and move silently. The third person view also allows the player an unrealistic but much needed ability to see what's going on on the other side of the cover.
Much like Assassin's Creed which uses automation to portray the protagonist's superior abilities and allow the player to focus on planning, the availability of information in Human Revolution does the same. They can even get away with this lack of realism. After all, the game is about human augmentation and all abilities are explained through them. Most importantly, sneaking past enemies and taking them down unseen is highly satisfying.
Admittedly Human Revolution might not be the first game to all this right, but it is in my experience. I admit that I haven't played Metal Gear Solid games much because of the abysmal controls and camera view in MGS2.
2. Inventory, ammo and what is this
The core gameplay of Human Revolution is rock solid. That doesn't mean the game would be entirely without flaws. Let's start with the antique inventory. It is true that slot-based inventory has been a staple in games since - I don't know, forever? - but I'm inclined to think that it's not a very modern solution. There has to be a better way than playing tetris with different sized rectangles on a grid. I have never liked playing around with the inventory in games, and often these limitations of carrying capacity feel really artificial. It cannot be a question of realism because these systems never are realistic. Game balance is the more likely reason to limit what the player can have with them. But why the grid? It makes no sense. A list is much nicer. You can still have a limit on how many virtual slots the character can carry, and have a number for each item to tell the player how many slots it takes. If you really want that grid then please at least give me a good automatic sorting system.
The weirdest thing in both Deus Ex and Human Revolution is the clip size of weapons. Clips in this world are ridiculously small. Semiautomatic pistol with 6 bullet clips? Combat rifle that can hold 20 at a time? You got to be kidding me. I don't even find a game balance justification for this one. The game does its best to support multiple playing styles, but constant reloading really limits options in combat. It also just feels wrong. This is supposed to be the future, so how come they cannot build decent weapons? There was also a bit of a power imbalance between lethal and non-lethal weapons. A single hit from any non-lethal weapon is guaranteed to incapacitate the target, but against some enemies a headshot from a sniper rifle is not.
Conclusion
Human Revolution is a really successful game and a clear improvement over its legendary ancestor from a modern player's point of view. The game had a solid pacing with enough dialogue between action scenes. Levels in the game were not too huge and didn't start to drag at any point. The persuasion system was good, even though I didn't mention it in detail. I did find a it a bit disappointing that just like in the original, the player simply decided the game's ending in the final moments.
There was also the issue of boss fights which were not really suitable for the game. They've gotten a lot of fan rage for a reason. Forcing the player to fight rather deadly enemies in a game where it is possible to put everything into stealth abilities is not a good idea. However I actually didn't find these fights very hard. I just applied a lot of explosives to the problem and it went away. Still, the boss fights really don't fit into the game's general feel. The original allowed players to circumvent at least some boss fights (it didn't have many anyway) and that was a much better solution.
But yeah, I liked Human Revolution. Enough to get its pricey DLC Missing Link and I have to say that it was also very enjoyable.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
I've taken up a new tradition of playing exactly one Assassin's Creed each year. Seems to be a good pace since I didn't feel bored with Brotherhood at any point. Dunno what will happen with Revelations, but I will be playing it next year. Nevertheless, it is a surprisingly good series. The first game went wrong in many ways, sure, but the sequel and Brotherhood are both excellent examples of good game design on many fronts. Let's take a look.
1. Empowering the player
Assassin's Creeds are sandboxes and the player is almost omnipotent within. The protagonist is a master assassin with all the appropriate skills. What's spectacular about Assassin's Creed is that the designers have found a way for the player to truly feel empowered by each and every one of these skills. Every trick in the master assassin's bag is at the player's fingertips. Commanding Ezio to do all these things is as seemingly effortless for the player as completing the task is for the assassin. This is achieved through a lot of helpful automation. The marvel in Assassin's Creed is how well all this automation has been implemented as it rarely makes mistakes. The controls are not perfect, but they are quite close, and most importantly they are really powerful.
What's achieved by these powerful controls is that the player is empowered to truly take upon himself the role of a master assassin. Execution is never hard, but the planning is, and that's what's largely left for the player to figure out. More importantly, the player is capable of constantly doing awesome feats and can decide for themselves which feats to use where. Perhaps the prime example would be Ezio's ability to instakill enemies while attacking undetected. There are many different scenarios to do this. The simplest is to walk behind and enemy and stab them with the hidden dagger. Or a pair of enemies once dual hidden blades have been obtained. Ezio can just easily kill enemies by dropping on them from high above with perfect precision. The latter feat is achieved quite easily in the game because Ezio always has a target if there is one within range. There's no need to lock onto enemies separately (although that can be done to make the camera follow them).
All the systems in the game follow a simple control scheme which is really easy to learn and does a lot of things with the press of one or two buttons. The manual dexterity requirement is really low - Assassin's Creed is the thinking man's action adventure game.
2. Combat
Combat also follows the rule of empowerment through effective controls. What's remarkable about combat in the series is that while it's not very realistic, it feels right. Once again, execution is easy but effective fighting requires planning and careful positioning. Ezio can easily dodge or even counter enemy attacks. He can lay waste to multiple enemies in a kill streak. With all this power, he still loses very quickly if the player just attacks mindlessly. The combat system is all about waiting for an opening, followed by quick retaliation. Ezio moves gracefully in combat, and automation takes care that fighting looks cool. More importantly, it feels cool. It is also fairly slow-paced. This means that getting into a fight is always a delay. Although fights are rarely difficult and often very satisfying to fight, it is often at least equally satisfying to avoid them by silencing enemies one by one.
The most important change in Brotherhood over the previous title is that the secondary weapons are now actually usable in combat. Depending on what main weapon Ezio is using, holding the attack button makes a secondary weapon attack. Still, the game has a lot of weapons but swapping between them is quite pointless. This I think is one thing the developers should look into. Pretty much any weapon can handle 99% of all the situations. With swapping weapons being a bit too clumsy, this leads to a lot of things that largely go unused.
I do have one complaint about horseback fighting. The game now features horses as an important means of travel, and they can also been seen in combat. However I found it a bit weird that attacks from horseback are really, really weak. In most cases it is much faster to simply dismount and take the enemies on on foot than try to whack them from horseback. If horses are involved in later installments of the series, I hope the developers give riding attacks a whopping damage boost. I want to ride through my enemies and absolutely smash them.
3. Lots to do is not content unless it's also fun
This is an important lesson for sandbox games. Giving the player freedom do a gazillion things is not enough. What's really important is to make every single thing that the player is able to do fun. This is the lesson Assassin's Creed developers have taken to heart. The Rome of Brotherhood is full of things to do and they are almost always guaranteed to be fun for the player. Hell, even starting an entirely pointless fight can be fun with the game's combat system. Sure there are always some misses in the huge amount of side missions available, but they are in the marginal. The takeaway is simple. There's no point in including a task in a game if that task is not fun to perform. There's also no point in repeating a task that gets boring easily.
Conclusion
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is a must for anyone involved with action adventure design. So many things have been done right that it's hard to count all of them. Could be that things are even better in Revelations but I haven't checked it out yet. I'm more curious about Assassin's Creed III though, since it is finally a completely different setting and should take the series into an entirely different direction.
1. Empowering the player
Assassin's Creeds are sandboxes and the player is almost omnipotent within. The protagonist is a master assassin with all the appropriate skills. What's spectacular about Assassin's Creed is that the designers have found a way for the player to truly feel empowered by each and every one of these skills. Every trick in the master assassin's bag is at the player's fingertips. Commanding Ezio to do all these things is as seemingly effortless for the player as completing the task is for the assassin. This is achieved through a lot of helpful automation. The marvel in Assassin's Creed is how well all this automation has been implemented as it rarely makes mistakes. The controls are not perfect, but they are quite close, and most importantly they are really powerful.
What's achieved by these powerful controls is that the player is empowered to truly take upon himself the role of a master assassin. Execution is never hard, but the planning is, and that's what's largely left for the player to figure out. More importantly, the player is capable of constantly doing awesome feats and can decide for themselves which feats to use where. Perhaps the prime example would be Ezio's ability to instakill enemies while attacking undetected. There are many different scenarios to do this. The simplest is to walk behind and enemy and stab them with the hidden dagger. Or a pair of enemies once dual hidden blades have been obtained. Ezio can just easily kill enemies by dropping on them from high above with perfect precision. The latter feat is achieved quite easily in the game because Ezio always has a target if there is one within range. There's no need to lock onto enemies separately (although that can be done to make the camera follow them).
All the systems in the game follow a simple control scheme which is really easy to learn and does a lot of things with the press of one or two buttons. The manual dexterity requirement is really low - Assassin's Creed is the thinking man's action adventure game.
2. Combat
Combat also follows the rule of empowerment through effective controls. What's remarkable about combat in the series is that while it's not very realistic, it feels right. Once again, execution is easy but effective fighting requires planning and careful positioning. Ezio can easily dodge or even counter enemy attacks. He can lay waste to multiple enemies in a kill streak. With all this power, he still loses very quickly if the player just attacks mindlessly. The combat system is all about waiting for an opening, followed by quick retaliation. Ezio moves gracefully in combat, and automation takes care that fighting looks cool. More importantly, it feels cool. It is also fairly slow-paced. This means that getting into a fight is always a delay. Although fights are rarely difficult and often very satisfying to fight, it is often at least equally satisfying to avoid them by silencing enemies one by one.
The most important change in Brotherhood over the previous title is that the secondary weapons are now actually usable in combat. Depending on what main weapon Ezio is using, holding the attack button makes a secondary weapon attack. Still, the game has a lot of weapons but swapping between them is quite pointless. This I think is one thing the developers should look into. Pretty much any weapon can handle 99% of all the situations. With swapping weapons being a bit too clumsy, this leads to a lot of things that largely go unused.
I do have one complaint about horseback fighting. The game now features horses as an important means of travel, and they can also been seen in combat. However I found it a bit weird that attacks from horseback are really, really weak. In most cases it is much faster to simply dismount and take the enemies on on foot than try to whack them from horseback. If horses are involved in later installments of the series, I hope the developers give riding attacks a whopping damage boost. I want to ride through my enemies and absolutely smash them.
3. Lots to do is not content unless it's also fun
This is an important lesson for sandbox games. Giving the player freedom do a gazillion things is not enough. What's really important is to make every single thing that the player is able to do fun. This is the lesson Assassin's Creed developers have taken to heart. The Rome of Brotherhood is full of things to do and they are almost always guaranteed to be fun for the player. Hell, even starting an entirely pointless fight can be fun with the game's combat system. Sure there are always some misses in the huge amount of side missions available, but they are in the marginal. The takeaway is simple. There's no point in including a task in a game if that task is not fun to perform. There's also no point in repeating a task that gets boring easily.
Conclusion
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood is a must for anyone involved with action adventure design. So many things have been done right that it's hard to count all of them. Could be that things are even better in Revelations but I haven't checked it out yet. I'm more curious about Assassin's Creed III though, since it is finally a completely different setting and should take the series into an entirely different direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)