Monday, September 18, 2017
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
Will Smith to Run For President 2016
New Jersey, April 1st—Actor and spokesman Will Smith
has announced he will be running for president in the 2016 campaign.
At a recent promotional meetup advocating Smith’s latest
film, Blackface, the star revealed his plans to not only run for president, but
take the competition by storm.
After the initial shock, scientists decided to undergo a
little research.
Researchers at the University of Fiasco Liaf in Texas presented a case study about how random
participants respond to different actors.
According to the study, 86.98% of participants chose Will
Smith over Steve Carell when asked to choose who would best fit the title of The
President of theUnited States.
“This discovery,” remarks FL Texas professor Gongan
Johanlass, “signifies a clear correlation between those perceived as leaders
and actors who play in alien movies.”
Further research was conducted by Mallop Poll to 1,500
citizens across the US.
The findings are groundbreaking.
When asked to identify why Will Smith would be best in the
role of President, 97% of participants chose option D, which was “because he
has facial hair.”
A new initiative is being conducted to conclude why this is
the case, and we’ll fill you in on the details as they come. In the mean time,
we’ll be on the edge of our seats waiting for what kind of killer campaign
Smith has to offer.
So, until then, happy April 1st.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Interview with Chris Newton, Publisher of Indie Game Mag
Welcome, fellow reader. I've got something a little different for you today. Recently, I interviewed Chris Newton, the publisher of Indie Game Magazine, on the subject of game design and the emerging Indie market. Chris Newton has been working with the publication since 2011, and has only recently (this month, actually) moved up to the position of publisher from his previous position, content manager.
Enjoy the review, and see if you can glean anything out of what Chris has to say that you could apply to your own endeavors. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Me: Hello, Chris. :D As the content manager of Indie Game Magazine, what are some of the things you do?
Chris Newton: Hello, I should start off by letting your readers know that I recently actually purchased IGM, so I bought myself a promotion into Publisher. I am not sure if that is the best way to go about leveling up, but I love the site and wanted to make it my own.
My normal role in IGM has not changed, however. I am the business mind and voice behind the publication. I typically lead the marketing and strategic planning of the site and work with our Editor-in-Chief, Tom Christiansen, on getting reviews and news stories organized and published. Really, I collect the incoming mail from the developers, let them know about the services that we provide and then give that data to Tom to assigns it to an appropriate writer.
That is, in a simple explanation, what I do.
Me: Oh, so you've moved up then! Congratulations. Chris, I assume that you had some experience with videogames (i.e. playing them) before the advent of the "Indie Game Revolution," which has only recently spawned in the gaming industry. What are some good things that you have seen come about from this "revolution," so to speak?
CN: Well, my experience in the indie game industry is going to be surprisingly limited. I actually joined Mike as an Editor-in-Chief based on my experience in content management and writing/editing staff leadership. But my previous experience was with the card game, Magic: The Gathering. I have played more than my share of games, but they have normally been AAA games. In my time at IGM, I have been educated by two of the best minds in our industry; Mike Gnade and Chris Priestman, so I have basically had a crash course in the indie scene.
What I believe to be best things to come from our industry is actually not even game related. I believe that the scene is becoming stronger and growing near to a revolution based on the revolution of the mind and not of the games. Indies are beginning to look at our market as just that… a market. In the past it was just a group of guys making a game because it would be cool to make it and play. Now people are looking at the scene as a business. Profit is the benchmark rather than who made the coolest game, and that sparks the drive to make games that the players want to play rather than what the developers think will be cool.
Me: When I think of “profit-driven” efforts, I sometimes associate them with poor software made by companies who care more about bringing in the dough than creating solid games. But, you state profit as a benchmark is a good thing. I can see how that would be the case, but I'm not sure that I've thought about it in the way you just described. What types of games do you like the best? Why?
CN: I like Flash games the most. Flash games tend to be very short and mind numbing in a great way. I don’t need to spend time learning to play the game, I just play them. On top of that, they are fairly short and enjoyable. I can play four or five in an hour’s time and not feel guilty for spending a bunch of time on a single game. I have two small kids, so for me, time is super valuable.
Me: Time is valuable. It is good that you see that now.
We who are game developers and who work with the industry don't just play games; we study them. What are some good patterns in game design that you have seen from your playing experience?
CN: Well, I am not the best person to ask this question because I don’t really play a lot of games these days. What I can offer insight on is a pattern that I have seen increasing in the business side of the industry. It is the influx of third party marketing and public relations. I have very strong feelings about this, but I don’t know that this is the forum for that discussion. But I do think that developers should work on embracing marketing and public relations rather than pay an outside company to do this for them. Money is very limited in our industry and giving away money to do something that they can easily do themselves is a little disheartening.
Me: That's an interesting idea. Marketing is one of the more exciting aspects of game development for me. What do you think is the most important aspect of game design? Why?
CN: I think that understanding the intended audience is vitally important to answering this question. Are we making a game that is geared toward zombie fans? Are we aiming at traditional RPG fans? Gameplay, learning curve, etc. are all meaningless if you can’t get someone to play the game, so my opinion is that study of the intended audience is both vitally important and vastly under achieved. So I guess my answer would be marketing.
Me: Hm, interesting point. If a game is good, I would think that, regardless of whether the marketing was optimal or not, an audience would arise by word of mouth and curious gamers. Personally I'm seeing a lot of great new software coming from Indie Developers. We'll only see more of this in time, I think. Where do you see the Indie Game market going in the future?
CN: I think that the easy answer would have to be mobile devices. It won’t be too terribly long until tablets and even smartphones have the power of a laptop and then who knows? The fact that Unity allows devs to reach those mobile devices kicks the door wide open as well. I see a ton of games coming into us that are offered on iOS, Android, PC, Linux, Mac, etc. That was not the case a couple years ago.
Me: Yes, even now Indie developers are making games for such devices. Looking to the future, I can see that the emerging game developers are obviously going to be those who give the players what they want. What practices/techniques will the emerging star developers of the future make use of?
CN: I am going to sound like a scratched record here, but Marketing plus add in social media. You mentioned that game developers are studying games. If that is true, then they need to begin studying Minecraft and even Angry Birds to discover how those games made it so big. It is certainly not because they use blocks and cubes in everything or that they fling birds across the screen. So then what is it? Marketing and Social Media. They have both took to the market to find and embrace the audience that they are addressing, and the audience has responded.
Me: Well, you have a good reason for repeating yourself! I would have thought that the success of games like Angry Birds, had to do largely with the game itself. But efficient marketing may have had a greater affect than I thought. I've seen Angry Birds all over the place (from collectible erasers to t-shirts). Lastly, if you could design the next major gaming system, what would it include? :)
CN: Well, since I am an old school gamer, it has GOT to have 8-bits, plumbers, elves and blue bombers. (Joke!) But really, I don't think that the technology is what defines the system and perhaps that is what makes very little difference between PS1, PS2 and PS3. They are all just ‘The Next Console’. Whereas if you talk about the NES or Genesis, epic titles and characters pop into your mind. The NES set a standard that, in my opinion, has yet to be met by anything since. Almost every major title in that system had a character that you identity with and authentically care about. It was important to those designers to ensure that you wanted to know what happened next to Mario, Mega Man, Link, and even the entire Belmont Family. Extend that line of thinking into future consoles and the value of lineage and legacy diminishes. Instead of trying to make sure to continue something awesome or just making something awesome, you get the sixth or seventh knock-off of Halo (which was Half-Life, which was Quake.. etc.). We understand that certain genres sell greatly and are profitable, but be unique about it, test the uncertain grounds. Be bold enough to take a chance.
I mean, your only possible results can be Epic Failure, Moderate Success or Epic Awesomeness. Moderate Success does not lead to anything but mediocrity. It doesn't even supply you with data by which to improve. Both Failure and Success provide that valuable data and help lead you to improve and that should be the goal – constant growth and improvement.
Me: I agree with you about taking chances. There are still great strides to be made in the art of game design. And the ones who are willing to go against the grain will be the ones who get the new—and better—results.
Thank you for your time, Chris! It was a pleasure interviewing you.
-Amoeba of Light
Enjoy the review, and see if you can glean anything out of what Chris has to say that you could apply to your own endeavors. ________________________________________________________________________________________________
Me: Hello, Chris. :D As the content manager of Indie Game Magazine, what are some of the things you do?
Chris Newton: Hello, I should start off by letting your readers know that I recently actually purchased IGM, so I bought myself a promotion into Publisher. I am not sure if that is the best way to go about leveling up, but I love the site and wanted to make it my own.
My normal role in IGM has not changed, however. I am the business mind and voice behind the publication. I typically lead the marketing and strategic planning of the site and work with our Editor-in-Chief, Tom Christiansen, on getting reviews and news stories organized and published. Really, I collect the incoming mail from the developers, let them know about the services that we provide and then give that data to Tom to assigns it to an appropriate writer.
That is, in a simple explanation, what I do.
Me: Oh, so you've moved up then! Congratulations. Chris, I assume that you had some experience with videogames (i.e. playing them) before the advent of the "Indie Game Revolution," which has only recently spawned in the gaming industry. What are some good things that you have seen come about from this "revolution," so to speak?
CN: Well, my experience in the indie game industry is going to be surprisingly limited. I actually joined Mike as an Editor-in-Chief based on my experience in content management and writing/editing staff leadership. But my previous experience was with the card game, Magic: The Gathering. I have played more than my share of games, but they have normally been AAA games. In my time at IGM, I have been educated by two of the best minds in our industry; Mike Gnade and Chris Priestman, so I have basically had a crash course in the indie scene.
What I believe to be best things to come from our industry is actually not even game related. I believe that the scene is becoming stronger and growing near to a revolution based on the revolution of the mind and not of the games. Indies are beginning to look at our market as just that… a market. In the past it was just a group of guys making a game because it would be cool to make it and play. Now people are looking at the scene as a business. Profit is the benchmark rather than who made the coolest game, and that sparks the drive to make games that the players want to play rather than what the developers think will be cool.
Me: When I think of “profit-driven” efforts, I sometimes associate them with poor software made by companies who care more about bringing in the dough than creating solid games. But, you state profit as a benchmark is a good thing. I can see how that would be the case, but I'm not sure that I've thought about it in the way you just described. What types of games do you like the best? Why?
CN: I like Flash games the most. Flash games tend to be very short and mind numbing in a great way. I don’t need to spend time learning to play the game, I just play them. On top of that, they are fairly short and enjoyable. I can play four or five in an hour’s time and not feel guilty for spending a bunch of time on a single game. I have two small kids, so for me, time is super valuable.
Me: Time is valuable. It is good that you see that now.
We who are game developers and who work with the industry don't just play games; we study them. What are some good patterns in game design that you have seen from your playing experience?
CN: Well, I am not the best person to ask this question because I don’t really play a lot of games these days. What I can offer insight on is a pattern that I have seen increasing in the business side of the industry. It is the influx of third party marketing and public relations. I have very strong feelings about this, but I don’t know that this is the forum for that discussion. But I do think that developers should work on embracing marketing and public relations rather than pay an outside company to do this for them. Money is very limited in our industry and giving away money to do something that they can easily do themselves is a little disheartening.
Me: That's an interesting idea. Marketing is one of the more exciting aspects of game development for me. What do you think is the most important aspect of game design? Why?
CN: I think that understanding the intended audience is vitally important to answering this question. Are we making a game that is geared toward zombie fans? Are we aiming at traditional RPG fans? Gameplay, learning curve, etc. are all meaningless if you can’t get someone to play the game, so my opinion is that study of the intended audience is both vitally important and vastly under achieved. So I guess my answer would be marketing.
Me: Hm, interesting point. If a game is good, I would think that, regardless of whether the marketing was optimal or not, an audience would arise by word of mouth and curious gamers. Personally I'm seeing a lot of great new software coming from Indie Developers. We'll only see more of this in time, I think. Where do you see the Indie Game market going in the future?
CN: I think that the easy answer would have to be mobile devices. It won’t be too terribly long until tablets and even smartphones have the power of a laptop and then who knows? The fact that Unity allows devs to reach those mobile devices kicks the door wide open as well. I see a ton of games coming into us that are offered on iOS, Android, PC, Linux, Mac, etc. That was not the case a couple years ago.
Me: Yes, even now Indie developers are making games for such devices. Looking to the future, I can see that the emerging game developers are obviously going to be those who give the players what they want. What practices/techniques will the emerging star developers of the future make use of?
CN: I am going to sound like a scratched record here, but Marketing plus add in social media. You mentioned that game developers are studying games. If that is true, then they need to begin studying Minecraft and even Angry Birds to discover how those games made it so big. It is certainly not because they use blocks and cubes in everything or that they fling birds across the screen. So then what is it? Marketing and Social Media. They have both took to the market to find and embrace the audience that they are addressing, and the audience has responded.
Me: Well, you have a good reason for repeating yourself! I would have thought that the success of games like Angry Birds, had to do largely with the game itself. But efficient marketing may have had a greater affect than I thought. I've seen Angry Birds all over the place (from collectible erasers to t-shirts). Lastly, if you could design the next major gaming system, what would it include? :)
CN: Well, since I am an old school gamer, it has GOT to have 8-bits, plumbers, elves and blue bombers. (Joke!) But really, I don't think that the technology is what defines the system and perhaps that is what makes very little difference between PS1, PS2 and PS3. They are all just ‘The Next Console’. Whereas if you talk about the NES or Genesis, epic titles and characters pop into your mind. The NES set a standard that, in my opinion, has yet to be met by anything since. Almost every major title in that system had a character that you identity with and authentically care about. It was important to those designers to ensure that you wanted to know what happened next to Mario, Mega Man, Link, and even the entire Belmont Family. Extend that line of thinking into future consoles and the value of lineage and legacy diminishes. Instead of trying to make sure to continue something awesome or just making something awesome, you get the sixth or seventh knock-off of Halo (which was Half-Life, which was Quake.. etc.). We understand that certain genres sell greatly and are profitable, but be unique about it, test the uncertain grounds. Be bold enough to take a chance.
I mean, your only possible results can be Epic Failure, Moderate Success or Epic Awesomeness. Moderate Success does not lead to anything but mediocrity. It doesn't even supply you with data by which to improve. Both Failure and Success provide that valuable data and help lead you to improve and that should be the goal – constant growth and improvement.
Me: I agree with you about taking chances. There are still great strides to be made in the art of game design. And the ones who are willing to go against the grain will be the ones who get the new—and better—results.
Thank you for your time, Chris! It was a pleasure interviewing you.
-Amoeba of Light
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Case in Point: Pikmin 3
Starting today, I'm adding a new type of post to the Game Fruit blog. They will be called "Case in Point" posts, and will focus on a real life video game, examining it with the topics I've discussed in other posts. I will scrutinize games using the knowledge of what I've learned in Game Studies.
Pikmin 3 is a pretty good game. Upon its launch, it exemplified perhaps the greatest use of the Wii U's GPU. The game takes place in a colorful world that closely resembles earth in both character and presentation. It's a pleasing game to look at. But, of course, graphics aren't everything.
It's got alot going for it, this Pikmin 3. The story starts off quite compelling, particularly if you're a fan of the Pikmin series. Alph, Brittany, and Charlie are on a mission to an alien planet to collect food for their starving civilization. But just before their craft prepares to land...BOOM! Something goes "terribly wrong," as the narrator says in the opening cutscene. The three adventurers are separated, and you must control each one to have them meet together again.
Because of how the neatly the package is wrapped up, the player will be pleased just getting the hang of things in the start off: it's calm, realistic looking and sounding, and curious. Realism is beneficial to games, as if it holds some intrinsic value. When you apply realism to any aspect of a game (provided it's adapted from something good in real life), it prospers. I mean just think about it. Realistic graphics equals excitement and aesthetic goodness; realistic characters equals compelling plots; realistic controls equals and precision and easy-to-learn gameplay. In fact, let's talk about controls next.
This is one area where Pikmin 3 could have been better. If you've played Pikmin 2 for the Gamecube like I have, you would notice that Pikmin 3 isn't as responsive, as far as controls go. There is some latency involved when you press a button. I'm not sure if this is because you are using a wireless controller, or just because of how the game is programmed. Either way, this aspect subtracts from the heart of Pikmin gaming that I was used to, i.e. quick action (particularly when throwing pikmin). In fact, this fault--if you want to call it that--actually leads the player to take in more of the serene aura of the game, which is brought about by the realistic graphics and calmness that I mentioned earlier. So you may feel that the game is leaning more towards "casual" than you would if the controls were quicker in response. This wouldn't be an issue if I wasn't used to the controls of Pikmin 2. But nevertheless I am, and so are all the other Pikmin fans like me. So when you go to press the "A" button as fast as you can, you end up throwing a Pikmin only half of the time. The ambiguity of control that I felt had a negative effect on the gameplay.
There are a lot of little things that add up to make this game pleasing, such as the colorful personality of the pikmin and the mellow but delightful sound effects that create a mellifluous ambiance to explore in. Little pleasures like these helps one to appreciate a game; when they work together in unity, the results are exceptional. Everything in a game should be working together, really.
Once you get into the mission of collecting fruit, the game becomes quite engaging. It also helps that the fruit looks so believably real and that the environment and bugs look and behave likewise. Because the different bugs have different behavioral patterns, you experience a nice learning curve for a while. There is a significant amount of strategy involved with killing off these critters. And some are hardly critters...if you've never played a Pikmin game, you'll be surprised by the variety of bugs that you'll come in contact with. Some are big, some are small, and most all of them resemble a real creature here on earth. You'll also find "data files" in the game that give you bits of information. I found these pretty pleasing to collect--that was a bit surprising, considering that they're just little tads of info. But still.
Another disappointment with this game was that I seemed to be led along the path carved out by the storyline too much. There didn't seem to be as much freedom compared to Pikmin 2. In fact, the game as a whole seems to be more buffed and waxed--that is, generally more adapted to casual players. Unfortunately this means that, in turn, some of the features that non-casual players would look for are harmed or completely cast out. This need not be the case. But it is the case with this game, at least in part. Nintendo did well in bringing over various staples from the Pikmin series. But some things were changed or left out, and not for the better. I want you to notice something else here: I'm comparing Pikmin 3 to Pikmin 2. Obviously, games in a frachise like this are going to be judged greatly by their predecessors. A similar thing may occur if one attempts to make a video game that resembles another game. In fact, that game may be considered mediocre and looked down upon. I'd say that's generally not a good idea.
Now before you think this game is a bust, let me assure you that there is something to be enjoyed here. A lot of my disappointments sprout from the fact that I have played Pikmin 2, and so was expecting certain things from the third installment of the series. If I had never played a Pikmin game, I'd have better words to say. The Pikmin games are actually a unique breed of games, as far as I've seen. That trait alone will help a game's success. Newness is a good thing when it comes to videogames. Also consider that certain game institutions--like the red, blue, and yellow pikmin--are ideas Pikmin fans are already used to. It's almost as if we take them for granted, and so don't think too highly of them. Personally, when I play a game today, one of the main things I'm looking for is a new or uncommon experience. The Pikmin series in general brings this to the table.
There are two multiplayer modes beside the main story mode: Mission Mode and Bingo Battle. The former lets you control one or more of the three main characters as you aim to kill the most bugs or collect the most treasure (it's a battle against the clock). The latter pits you against a friend as you aim to get four in a row on your bingo card by collecting bugs to make the combination. Now, personally, neither of these modes really tickled my fancy. But I've heard several testimonials, if you will, from players who have really enjoyed the Bingo battle game mode, claiming that it's a lot of fun. What these two modes do is add some variation to the normal gameplay of Pikmin 3. They create a break in the normal collect-fruit-and-harvest-pikmin story mode that you'll spend most of your time on. Of course the story mode is quite fun; yet sometimes you just feel like doing something different. It's not just that these game modes offer a different form of gameplay, but also that different feelings result from playing these modes as do when you play story mode. A game has to feel different to be different; that is, it needs to seem like a different experience, not the same experience with a new shell.
I'm going to point out how I spoiled this game for myself. Yes, you read that correctly. Believe it or not, it's actually my fault that Pikmin 3 wasn't as fun as I wanted it to be. I didn't completely ruin the game, but I sabotaged it nonetheless. How did this happen? For one, I expected a lot from this game. This is the prodecessor to one of the best games I've ever played through. It's the game I've been looking forward to for years, soon after it's first official public reveal so many E3 conventions ago...and so what happened? I was disappointed because it didn't meet my expectations. Expectations that are not met automatically lessen the player's appreciation of a game. And that's true with most things, I'd say.
Second, like I mentioned above, I had a standard with which to measure this game. Somtimes I would experience something while playing Pikmin 3 and would think how Pikmin 2 was better than this. There were certain tools and features I was used to in Pikmin 2 that I wanted to be in the third installment. Where was the ability to line up your pikmin like army soldiers like I could do with the C-stick on the Gamecube controller? Where are the cave levels that made Pikmin 2 so exciting? Third, I tried to make sure Pikmin 3 measured up to my expectations. This actually isn't surprising. I was disappointed and concerned at how the game would turn out, so I attempted to aggrandize it by trying to make the gameplay more intense; by trying to marvel at the new treasure I found; by trying to convince myself of how great the story was; by periodically making use of abilities that I really saw as useless (like the dodge whistle). And it didn't work. I've just accepted that there are some elements of the game I plainly dislike.
Pikmin 3 is, indeed, a pretty good game. Take a look at the congregated critic scores. Play it yourself if you want to. Even I agree that it's brilliantly crafted in many ways, and I enjoyed it for the most part. But my disappointments led me to focus on the bad parts of the game, and I wasn't as satisfied as I could've been due to my poor experiences.
Wrapping it Up...
Things to Apply:
Maybe I'll go back and try again with a fresh mind; without worry of what the game's like compared to others. Maybe I'll try one of the two extra game modes, and actually enjoy them. Perhaps if I take my anxious mind off of the apparent fallacies and try the game out with curious innocence--just wanting to enjoy the simple pleasure of playing--I'll find some good in gaming experience. Perhaps I'll actually enjoy myself. Sometimes a critic's score isn't just dependent on a game's composition and objective examination. Our heart, and the issues thereof, may cause us to see things differently. -Amoeba of Light
Pikmin 3 is a pretty good game. Upon its launch, it exemplified perhaps the greatest use of the Wii U's GPU. The game takes place in a colorful world that closely resembles earth in both character and presentation. It's a pleasing game to look at. But, of course, graphics aren't everything.
It's got alot going for it, this Pikmin 3. The story starts off quite compelling, particularly if you're a fan of the Pikmin series. Alph, Brittany, and Charlie are on a mission to an alien planet to collect food for their starving civilization. But just before their craft prepares to land...BOOM! Something goes "terribly wrong," as the narrator says in the opening cutscene. The three adventurers are separated, and you must control each one to have them meet together again.
Because of how the neatly the package is wrapped up, the player will be pleased just getting the hang of things in the start off: it's calm, realistic looking and sounding, and curious. Realism is beneficial to games, as if it holds some intrinsic value. When you apply realism to any aspect of a game (provided it's adapted from something good in real life), it prospers. I mean just think about it. Realistic graphics equals excitement and aesthetic goodness; realistic characters equals compelling plots; realistic controls equals and precision and easy-to-learn gameplay. In fact, let's talk about controls next.
This is one area where Pikmin 3 could have been better. If you've played Pikmin 2 for the Gamecube like I have, you would notice that Pikmin 3 isn't as responsive, as far as controls go. There is some latency involved when you press a button. I'm not sure if this is because you are using a wireless controller, or just because of how the game is programmed. Either way, this aspect subtracts from the heart of Pikmin gaming that I was used to, i.e. quick action (particularly when throwing pikmin). In fact, this fault--if you want to call it that--actually leads the player to take in more of the serene aura of the game, which is brought about by the realistic graphics and calmness that I mentioned earlier. So you may feel that the game is leaning more towards "casual" than you would if the controls were quicker in response. This wouldn't be an issue if I wasn't used to the controls of Pikmin 2. But nevertheless I am, and so are all the other Pikmin fans like me. So when you go to press the "A" button as fast as you can, you end up throwing a Pikmin only half of the time. The ambiguity of control that I felt had a negative effect on the gameplay.
There are a lot of little things that add up to make this game pleasing, such as the colorful personality of the pikmin and the mellow but delightful sound effects that create a mellifluous ambiance to explore in. Little pleasures like these helps one to appreciate a game; when they work together in unity, the results are exceptional. Everything in a game should be working together, really.
Once you get into the mission of collecting fruit, the game becomes quite engaging. It also helps that the fruit looks so believably real and that the environment and bugs look and behave likewise. Because the different bugs have different behavioral patterns, you experience a nice learning curve for a while. There is a significant amount of strategy involved with killing off these critters. And some are hardly critters...if you've never played a Pikmin game, you'll be surprised by the variety of bugs that you'll come in contact with. Some are big, some are small, and most all of them resemble a real creature here on earth. You'll also find "data files" in the game that give you bits of information. I found these pretty pleasing to collect--that was a bit surprising, considering that they're just little tads of info. But still.
Another disappointment with this game was that I seemed to be led along the path carved out by the storyline too much. There didn't seem to be as much freedom compared to Pikmin 2. In fact, the game as a whole seems to be more buffed and waxed--that is, generally more adapted to casual players. Unfortunately this means that, in turn, some of the features that non-casual players would look for are harmed or completely cast out. This need not be the case. But it is the case with this game, at least in part. Nintendo did well in bringing over various staples from the Pikmin series. But some things were changed or left out, and not for the better. I want you to notice something else here: I'm comparing Pikmin 3 to Pikmin 2. Obviously, games in a frachise like this are going to be judged greatly by their predecessors. A similar thing may occur if one attempts to make a video game that resembles another game. In fact, that game may be considered mediocre and looked down upon. I'd say that's generally not a good idea.
Now before you think this game is a bust, let me assure you that there is something to be enjoyed here. A lot of my disappointments sprout from the fact that I have played Pikmin 2, and so was expecting certain things from the third installment of the series. If I had never played a Pikmin game, I'd have better words to say. The Pikmin games are actually a unique breed of games, as far as I've seen. That trait alone will help a game's success. Newness is a good thing when it comes to videogames. Also consider that certain game institutions--like the red, blue, and yellow pikmin--are ideas Pikmin fans are already used to. It's almost as if we take them for granted, and so don't think too highly of them. Personally, when I play a game today, one of the main things I'm looking for is a new or uncommon experience. The Pikmin series in general brings this to the table.
There are two multiplayer modes beside the main story mode: Mission Mode and Bingo Battle. The former lets you control one or more of the three main characters as you aim to kill the most bugs or collect the most treasure (it's a battle against the clock). The latter pits you against a friend as you aim to get four in a row on your bingo card by collecting bugs to make the combination. Now, personally, neither of these modes really tickled my fancy. But I've heard several testimonials, if you will, from players who have really enjoyed the Bingo battle game mode, claiming that it's a lot of fun. What these two modes do is add some variation to the normal gameplay of Pikmin 3. They create a break in the normal collect-fruit-and-harvest-pikmin story mode that you'll spend most of your time on. Of course the story mode is quite fun; yet sometimes you just feel like doing something different. It's not just that these game modes offer a different form of gameplay, but also that different feelings result from playing these modes as do when you play story mode. A game has to feel different to be different; that is, it needs to seem like a different experience, not the same experience with a new shell.
I'm going to point out how I spoiled this game for myself. Yes, you read that correctly. Believe it or not, it's actually my fault that Pikmin 3 wasn't as fun as I wanted it to be. I didn't completely ruin the game, but I sabotaged it nonetheless. How did this happen? For one, I expected a lot from this game. This is the prodecessor to one of the best games I've ever played through. It's the game I've been looking forward to for years, soon after it's first official public reveal so many E3 conventions ago...and so what happened? I was disappointed because it didn't meet my expectations. Expectations that are not met automatically lessen the player's appreciation of a game. And that's true with most things, I'd say.
Second, like I mentioned above, I had a standard with which to measure this game. Somtimes I would experience something while playing Pikmin 3 and would think how Pikmin 2 was better than this. There were certain tools and features I was used to in Pikmin 2 that I wanted to be in the third installment. Where was the ability to line up your pikmin like army soldiers like I could do with the C-stick on the Gamecube controller? Where are the cave levels that made Pikmin 2 so exciting? Third, I tried to make sure Pikmin 3 measured up to my expectations. This actually isn't surprising. I was disappointed and concerned at how the game would turn out, so I attempted to aggrandize it by trying to make the gameplay more intense; by trying to marvel at the new treasure I found; by trying to convince myself of how great the story was; by periodically making use of abilities that I really saw as useless (like the dodge whistle). And it didn't work. I've just accepted that there are some elements of the game I plainly dislike.
Pikmin 3 is, indeed, a pretty good game. Take a look at the congregated critic scores. Play it yourself if you want to. Even I agree that it's brilliantly crafted in many ways, and I enjoyed it for the most part. But my disappointments led me to focus on the bad parts of the game, and I wasn't as satisfied as I could've been due to my poor experiences.
Wrapping it Up...
Things to Apply:
- Realism, which is applied in several areas in Pikmin 3
- Unity in beauty in regards to how game elements work together
- Variation in types of gameplay
- Rarity/uncommon experience
- Good Learning curve (for the most part), especially in regards to fighting bugs
- Clever little pleasures placed here and there (constitutes the learning curve)
- Controls feel a bit ambiguous at first
- Not as fast paced or challenging as I would have liked (compared to Pikmin 2)
- Limit of freedom to make choices
Maybe I'll go back and try again with a fresh mind; without worry of what the game's like compared to others. Maybe I'll try one of the two extra game modes, and actually enjoy them. Perhaps if I take my anxious mind off of the apparent fallacies and try the game out with curious innocence--just wanting to enjoy the simple pleasure of playing--I'll find some good in gaming experience. Perhaps I'll actually enjoy myself. Sometimes a critic's score isn't just dependent on a game's composition and objective examination. Our heart, and the issues thereof, may cause us to see things differently. -Amoeba of Light
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
9 Tips For Making Better Games
Sometimes you want to hear a detailed explanation, and sometimes you just want a list. Today, I've got a list for you; yes, a list of 9 tips for better games. Apply these points to your projects, and they will benefit from them!
1. Give them a choice.
Okay, one important aspect in game design is choices. Gameplay that offers meaningful choices creates an enjoyable experience. If you think about it, the more choices, the longer a game will occupy the player...as long as the choices actually matter.
2. Make their input matter
In designing a game, it is also important to make sure that every decision the player makes yields an appropriate response. Certain options are opinion related. For example, choosing the color car you want to drive is such a choice; choices like these are meaningful to the player but don't require as much care to design as a decision that would, say, alter the story. When choices really matter, gameplay is deepened.
3. Keep it real
There's a trend in the video game industry that has been in operation ever since Super Mario Bros: a move towards realism. What is realism? It's when a game and the aspects thereof resemble real life. I'm not just talking about cool high-definition graphics. Realism has to do with the personality and character of the game, so to speak. Intuitive controls, characters that you can empathize with, physics engines that make the game "feel" real--all these elements are kinds of realism that are exemplified in games.
4. Make it Genuine
Mediocrity is generally not appreciated. And it won't be appreciated in your games, either. Making your game genuine is similar to keeping it real. It means not trying to be something that you aren't. It's probably not a good idea to try to cover up poor game mechanics with sparkly graphics. If you're game is supposed to be real to life, keep it real to life. If it's a comedy, keep it comical!
5. Be New
Originality, novelty, variation--newness in all its forms practically creates an "intrinsic enagagemnet" for your players. Presenting your players with new ideas in a game or an original concept can really attract people. New things can be fun. I enjoy trying new game experiences, provided the game is fun. Putting in unique ideas will also help make a game stand out. If you want to learn more about the topic of "new,"click here.
6. Consider your Audience
It's good to consider your audience. With a game project that I'm working on right now, I want to appeal to as many people as possible. If you are trying to reach everyone with a game as I am in this case, you should consider some "limiters" that may turn away or draw in potential players. Time is one example. If you create a game with levels that last thirty minutes, you may turn away those who haven't got large enough chunks of leisure time to play that long. In a similar manner, a game that requires too much foreknowledge of common game mechanics or that takes novice players too fast may turn away the less experienced and so limit your audience. There is a way to slowly introduce new players to your game without boring the advanced players.
7. Balance the Learning Curve
Don't be concerned if you don't know what a learning curve is. The learning curve is (ideally) an arc on a graph that represents how many new things the player learns and experiences as time passes.(1) Basically you want to keep introducing new things to the player in the game without introducing too many new things at a time. This includes new skills the player learns to advance, but also other new experiences that the player encounters, like learning more about the plot or exploring a new world. Anything "new" counts. How you can perfect the learning curve is to keep testing the game. Test the game on others and not just yourself. Balancing the learning curve will help to create an enjoyable and continuing experience for the players.
8. Surprise the player
Do you like surprises? Well, it depends, you may say. If you're a planner type person (as I am) then a surprise that interrupts your schedule may not be appreciated. Either way, in a video game surprises are a good thing if you use them right. Suddenly introduce a dangerous new enemy to a player without any instruction? Not really ideal, unless you're trying to appeal to mostly hard-core action gamers (consider your audience). Give the player something that they'll want to play through. Don't be timid about moving away from the basic templates of a common genres into new territories; it may be worth it.
9. Consider the players
Different from considering your potential audience, by "consider the player", I mean to draw your attention to questioning what people want to play. Basically, let others test your game and consider their suggestions. You need not be worried about what others want; if you've got a passion for game making, I think you can come up with great ideas that many others will like as well. Just consider the requests of the gamers and add to or change your game appropriately.
There you have it. It's a long list, but it's still a list. Take a look at your own projects and imagine what would happen in you apply one or more of the above techniques to the game. Does it seem they would benefit your game? Try it out. Apply something you've learned; put it into practice. And don't forget, enjoy yourself. :) -Amoeba of Light
1. Give them a choice.
Okay, one important aspect in game design is choices. Gameplay that offers meaningful choices creates an enjoyable experience. If you think about it, the more choices, the longer a game will occupy the player...as long as the choices actually matter.
2. Make their input matter
In designing a game, it is also important to make sure that every decision the player makes yields an appropriate response. Certain options are opinion related. For example, choosing the color car you want to drive is such a choice; choices like these are meaningful to the player but don't require as much care to design as a decision that would, say, alter the story. When choices really matter, gameplay is deepened.
3. Keep it real
There's a trend in the video game industry that has been in operation ever since Super Mario Bros: a move towards realism. What is realism? It's when a game and the aspects thereof resemble real life. I'm not just talking about cool high-definition graphics. Realism has to do with the personality and character of the game, so to speak. Intuitive controls, characters that you can empathize with, physics engines that make the game "feel" real--all these elements are kinds of realism that are exemplified in games.
4. Make it Genuine
Mediocrity is generally not appreciated. And it won't be appreciated in your games, either. Making your game genuine is similar to keeping it real. It means not trying to be something that you aren't. It's probably not a good idea to try to cover up poor game mechanics with sparkly graphics. If you're game is supposed to be real to life, keep it real to life. If it's a comedy, keep it comical!
5. Be New
Originality, novelty, variation--newness in all its forms practically creates an "intrinsic enagagemnet" for your players. Presenting your players with new ideas in a game or an original concept can really attract people. New things can be fun. I enjoy trying new game experiences, provided the game is fun. Putting in unique ideas will also help make a game stand out. If you want to learn more about the topic of "new,"click here.
6. Consider your Audience
It's good to consider your audience. With a game project that I'm working on right now, I want to appeal to as many people as possible. If you are trying to reach everyone with a game as I am in this case, you should consider some "limiters" that may turn away or draw in potential players. Time is one example. If you create a game with levels that last thirty minutes, you may turn away those who haven't got large enough chunks of leisure time to play that long. In a similar manner, a game that requires too much foreknowledge of common game mechanics or that takes novice players too fast may turn away the less experienced and so limit your audience. There is a way to slowly introduce new players to your game without boring the advanced players.
7. Balance the Learning Curve
Don't be concerned if you don't know what a learning curve is. The learning curve is (ideally) an arc on a graph that represents how many new things the player learns and experiences as time passes.(1) Basically you want to keep introducing new things to the player in the game without introducing too many new things at a time. This includes new skills the player learns to advance, but also other new experiences that the player encounters, like learning more about the plot or exploring a new world. Anything "new" counts. How you can perfect the learning curve is to keep testing the game. Test the game on others and not just yourself. Balancing the learning curve will help to create an enjoyable and continuing experience for the players.
8. Surprise the player
Do you like surprises? Well, it depends, you may say. If you're a planner type person (as I am) then a surprise that interrupts your schedule may not be appreciated. Either way, in a video game surprises are a good thing if you use them right. Suddenly introduce a dangerous new enemy to a player without any instruction? Not really ideal, unless you're trying to appeal to mostly hard-core action gamers (consider your audience). Give the player something that they'll want to play through. Don't be timid about moving away from the basic templates of a common genres into new territories; it may be worth it.
9. Consider the players
Different from considering your potential audience, by "consider the player", I mean to draw your attention to questioning what people want to play. Basically, let others test your game and consider their suggestions. You need not be worried about what others want; if you've got a passion for game making, I think you can come up with great ideas that many others will like as well. Just consider the requests of the gamers and add to or change your game appropriately.
There you have it. It's a long list, but it's still a list. Take a look at your own projects and imagine what would happen in you apply one or more of the above techniques to the game. Does it seem they would benefit your game? Try it out. Apply something you've learned; put it into practice. And don't forget, enjoy yourself. :) -Amoeba of Light
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Breaking Free
Some things are just "normal" in video games. Suppose you're playing an adventure or platform game. Most likely it involves picking up some variation of the coin to collect points. If you're playing a casual puzzle game, chances are it involves lining up multiple objects in order to form a combo. Am I right? A subtle smirk may have surfaced on your face because those statements resonate with you. If you've played several different games and game genres like me, it's quite likely that you've noticed certain patterns in game design.
It seems to me that video games--especially those within the same genre--exemplify several of the same features. They may be hidden behind a veil of creative thought or shiny theatrics, but they are there nonetheless. Developers may utilize similar designs, but they don't have to. To all those game makers out there: we don't have to follow tradition. There are new roads to be traveled, new paths to be blazed, and new techniques to be applied. That's what this article is about. In the paragraphs to come, I'd like to share with you some insight on the effect and importance of breaking away from the accepted normal into the new. As I gamer myself, I'm open--even eager--for something different. To the seasoned veteran, to the sprouting novice, and to the aspiring developer: let's give them something more to play.
What About Tradition
Tradition itself is not bad, and I do not mean to imply that the games of today are a poor excuse for fun. Whether in the gaming industry or elsewhere, good traditions do exist. In regards to scripture, Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." Other translations replace "teachings" with "traditions." One can see that, in other areas of life, certain traditions are valuable, just like the ones that Paul and others passed on to the Thessalonians; yet, one can also see that certain other traditions can be detrimental. So what elements in games are better off left in the cupboard? In the end, that's for you to decide. But I hope that at the end of this article you will be better equipped to make better choices in game design. I'm going to split up our exploration of tradition and their effects into three sections, "Making New," "Making Better," and "Making More."
Making Better
If games have come this far since the Atari and NES, how much more progress can we make in the next ten years? But then again...what is progress? Some would argue that contemporary games are no better, perhaps even worse, than retro games. There are many factors to discuss in such a debate, but let's just quickly look at the areas of advancement that have been made in the gaming spectrum.
First off and perhaps most blatantly obvious, graphics have definitely advanced since those 8-bit days of pixelated endeavors. The use of polygons and the facilitation of more complex sprites has allowed for more realistic graphics, and has made paved the way for more creative ways to design such graphics. It's not just that games better resemble real life in their presentation. Graphic artists also have more freedom to express different art styles in their work than they did in the old days when they were only able to work with a relatively few pixels on a screen.
Secondly, sound effects definitely possess greater quality than in days past. We've come quite a ways from the depersonalized buzzes and beeps of the retro era. Was Johnny playing his Atari or was Dad starting the dial-up connection in the next room? No one could tell. I'm partly joking, but if you've ever played an older video game you know what I mean.
Thirdly, the physical interfaces have changed. Interfaces are gateways between the program (the game) and the user; it's where the player inputs data into the game so that the game can respond accordingly. By physical interfaces, I basically mean controllers and other hardware used to control the game. In the years that have passed, the analog stick has been invented, the D-pad has been moved around, buttons have been added and taken away, and controller designs have been developed that are more ergonomic. We've been able to use controllers as bats, we've been able to play games with a finger, and we've even been able to get rid of a controller altogether.
Fourthly (apparently, fourthly is an actual word), the gamer has been presented with more options in general. This is partly due to the increasing performance of game systems and their processing components. There could have been more complex games in the past I suppose, just not with all the grandeur and realism that today's systems can dish out. In general, today's games give us more choices and reactions as compared to games of the past. Gamers have more to learn about a game and the abilities they can use in-game. More options lead to more game responses, which leads to more to see, more to learn, and more to experience.
Another thing: the majority of mass market games (or the more popular games for sale, in other words) are lengthier than games of the past.
The last aspect I'm going to mention has to do with presentation. It's somewhat different than just graphics, in that I'm referring to the realistic and artistic value of a game's various elements. Among other things, more efficient processing components have,once again, facilitated things like dynamic cut-scenes; real-to-life physics engines; greater personality in characters; more pleasing character and environment reactions; and more.
Developers harness the power of stronger CPU's and better software to create better graphics, better experiences, and in the end better games.With all that behind us, let me get to the point of this discussion. Those in the gaming industry are doing a good job of creating enjoyable products for customers to play. In fact, it seems they are getting better at it in many ways (some more than others). Yes, there are those games that you or I may consider poor, but I'd say that good progress is being made in many areas of game design. But my point is this: you don't have to make games like others are.
As a game developer myself, one of the things I want to do is present something novel and interesting. There are certain "staples" in game genres that are prevalent in the games of those genres. Should they be there? If you're a game developer, what do you say? We don't have to mix together the same ingredients as the big bakers--the successful game making empires that are out there today. We don't even have to follow the trends of the emerging Indie market. We don't have to cook the same cake as the others; we don't even have to be making cake. I want you to realize that the way things are always done isn't necessarily the best, and that one can take a whole new path in producing a wonderful gaming gem. Be totally radical. There are still great ideas out there for the taking.
Now in looking at the subject of "making better," there are many ways that certain game design institutions can be improved upon. Some examples are the saving system (how games are saved), character control, or dialogue between characters. If you think about it, you could probably take something from a game--let's just focus on saving the game for now--and come up with a better system than one you are familiar with. The key is shaping it to make it easier and/or more enjoyable for the person playing. If you have a game franchise that you really like, they you've probably experienced improvements in one or more of the sequels in regards to one aspect or another. You can do the same with your own projects, basing your game on other games that you've played.
Making New
There's a game project that I've been working on for quite some time now that has to do with amoebas and adventure. One idea that I had was to have the game go straight to the opening cut-scene the first time it was played. So the opening menu would not be seen until the player came back the next time (this is to create an engaging movie-like effect). Recently I purchased a game that did just that--the first time we played, it opened up with a cut-scene. So I wasn't the only with that idea, hm? This game that I speak of included the searching for fruits to prevent the demise of a certain alien civilization.
This concept--breaking the ice with an opening cut-scene--is something I have not seen before. It's a new and potentially beneficial idea. Just like this, there are many more ideas out there that have yet to be tried, yielding new experiences that have yet to be enjoyed. So you're making a fighting game. Instead of giving each player an HP meter, perhaps you could try something different like giving the player fifty chances to get hit before he loses or making injured limbs deal weaker damage. If it's your game, feel free to try something new! The point is not to add something different just because. If you make use old techniques and paradigms, that's alright. Just don't assume that the old way of doing things is always the best way. And if you're after making excellent games, it would be ideal to give it your best.
Here are a few example questions that you could ask yourself in considering something new:
Making More
Improving upon old ideas and adding your own new ideas and concepts is a part of making your game something more for the player. New ideas seem to be the normal these days. At least here in the U.S., supposedly "new" ideas come up frequently, even daily, and hit the store shelves and TV commercial slots in the form a new gizmo than can enhance your life or a "magic potion" that can ease your burdens. Not all of these are mediocre, but not all of these are what they claim to be either (anyone who's bought a few infomercial products knows what I mean). Besides the small inventions, there are greater ones that have marked their place in history like the airplane, the microprocessor, and crustless bread.
But new doesn't always mean better. Sometimes what people want is not necessarily something new but something different: an old idea resurfaced or a new idea that's something special. Often what consumers want is something more. Making more means making something that exceeds what compares to it. As a game player, what do you look for in a game? Doing the same old thing as everyone else isn't going to bring many fans to your doorstep. But it's those trail blazers of game design--those producers, those graphic artists, those directors, those level designers--working together or as individuals, that have made something different and have made gaming history. Those shining trophies of the gaming world aren't just another game. They're not just another first person shooter or two-dimensional platformer. They are something different, something better, something more. Mass marketing helps too, of course. But if what you're selling isn't something different or something better, you won't get very far. Be bold; be creative.
The Bottom Line
We live in an age of constant change. Think back to when you first started playing video games. Do you remember what the popular game of the day was? If that game were introduced to the world today--without any foreknowledge of the franchise or characters thereof--I doubt it would receive as good reception as it did back then. Why? Because another game would have surpassed it by now. When you get to the bottom line, what makes those great games stand above the rest is either originality or improvement; either they brought something different to the gaming world or they improved upon current game mechanics. Think of your own favorite game, and see if these traits do not apply in some way. The lesson learned: if it's for the better, break away from tradition!
Let's not assume that the normal way is the best way anymore; it's time to give the world something better. I believe there is much more to be grasped and applied to video games that will create more enjoyable and pleasing game experiences, such as the world has not seen. These are only games, and I do not mean to imply that these virtual diversions can solve mankind's deeper problems. Only God can do that. But using the video game as a tool--even as a conduit to bring the Truth to this entertainment-influenced world--perhaps you and I can make a difference. A big difference. I'm excited to see where the gaming industry will go in the years to come--new places, new heights, new worlds. And maybe you'll be the one who will help it get there. -Amoeba of light
It seems to me that video games--especially those within the same genre--exemplify several of the same features. They may be hidden behind a veil of creative thought or shiny theatrics, but they are there nonetheless. Developers may utilize similar designs, but they don't have to. To all those game makers out there: we don't have to follow tradition. There are new roads to be traveled, new paths to be blazed, and new techniques to be applied. That's what this article is about. In the paragraphs to come, I'd like to share with you some insight on the effect and importance of breaking away from the accepted normal into the new. As I gamer myself, I'm open--even eager--for something different. To the seasoned veteran, to the sprouting novice, and to the aspiring developer: let's give them something more to play.
What About Tradition
Tradition itself is not bad, and I do not mean to imply that the games of today are a poor excuse for fun. Whether in the gaming industry or elsewhere, good traditions do exist. In regards to scripture, Paul says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." Other translations replace "teachings" with "traditions." One can see that, in other areas of life, certain traditions are valuable, just like the ones that Paul and others passed on to the Thessalonians; yet, one can also see that certain other traditions can be detrimental. So what elements in games are better off left in the cupboard? In the end, that's for you to decide. But I hope that at the end of this article you will be better equipped to make better choices in game design. I'm going to split up our exploration of tradition and their effects into three sections, "Making New," "Making Better," and "Making More."
Making Better
If games have come this far since the Atari and NES, how much more progress can we make in the next ten years? But then again...what is progress? Some would argue that contemporary games are no better, perhaps even worse, than retro games. There are many factors to discuss in such a debate, but let's just quickly look at the areas of advancement that have been made in the gaming spectrum.
First off and perhaps most blatantly obvious, graphics have definitely advanced since those 8-bit days of pixelated endeavors. The use of polygons and the facilitation of more complex sprites has allowed for more realistic graphics, and has made paved the way for more creative ways to design such graphics. It's not just that games better resemble real life in their presentation. Graphic artists also have more freedom to express different art styles in their work than they did in the old days when they were only able to work with a relatively few pixels on a screen.
Secondly, sound effects definitely possess greater quality than in days past. We've come quite a ways from the depersonalized buzzes and beeps of the retro era. Was Johnny playing his Atari or was Dad starting the dial-up connection in the next room? No one could tell. I'm partly joking, but if you've ever played an older video game you know what I mean.
Thirdly, the physical interfaces have changed. Interfaces are gateways between the program (the game) and the user; it's where the player inputs data into the game so that the game can respond accordingly. By physical interfaces, I basically mean controllers and other hardware used to control the game. In the years that have passed, the analog stick has been invented, the D-pad has been moved around, buttons have been added and taken away, and controller designs have been developed that are more ergonomic. We've been able to use controllers as bats, we've been able to play games with a finger, and we've even been able to get rid of a controller altogether.
Fourthly (apparently, fourthly is an actual word), the gamer has been presented with more options in general. This is partly due to the increasing performance of game systems and their processing components. There could have been more complex games in the past I suppose, just not with all the grandeur and realism that today's systems can dish out. In general, today's games give us more choices and reactions as compared to games of the past. Gamers have more to learn about a game and the abilities they can use in-game. More options lead to more game responses, which leads to more to see, more to learn, and more to experience.
Another thing: the majority of mass market games (or the more popular games for sale, in other words) are lengthier than games of the past.
The last aspect I'm going to mention has to do with presentation. It's somewhat different than just graphics, in that I'm referring to the realistic and artistic value of a game's various elements. Among other things, more efficient processing components have,once again, facilitated things like dynamic cut-scenes; real-to-life physics engines; greater personality in characters; more pleasing character and environment reactions; and more.
Developers harness the power of stronger CPU's and better software to create better graphics, better experiences, and in the end better games.With all that behind us, let me get to the point of this discussion. Those in the gaming industry are doing a good job of creating enjoyable products for customers to play. In fact, it seems they are getting better at it in many ways (some more than others). Yes, there are those games that you or I may consider poor, but I'd say that good progress is being made in many areas of game design. But my point is this: you don't have to make games like others are.
As a game developer myself, one of the things I want to do is present something novel and interesting. There are certain "staples" in game genres that are prevalent in the games of those genres. Should they be there? If you're a game developer, what do you say? We don't have to mix together the same ingredients as the big bakers--the successful game making empires that are out there today. We don't even have to follow the trends of the emerging Indie market. We don't have to cook the same cake as the others; we don't even have to be making cake. I want you to realize that the way things are always done isn't necessarily the best, and that one can take a whole new path in producing a wonderful gaming gem. Be totally radical. There are still great ideas out there for the taking.
Now in looking at the subject of "making better," there are many ways that certain game design institutions can be improved upon. Some examples are the saving system (how games are saved), character control, or dialogue between characters. If you think about it, you could probably take something from a game--let's just focus on saving the game for now--and come up with a better system than one you are familiar with. The key is shaping it to make it easier and/or more enjoyable for the person playing. If you have a game franchise that you really like, they you've probably experienced improvements in one or more of the sequels in regards to one aspect or another. You can do the same with your own projects, basing your game on other games that you've played.
Making New
There's a game project that I've been working on for quite some time now that has to do with amoebas and adventure. One idea that I had was to have the game go straight to the opening cut-scene the first time it was played. So the opening menu would not be seen until the player came back the next time (this is to create an engaging movie-like effect). Recently I purchased a game that did just that--the first time we played, it opened up with a cut-scene. So I wasn't the only with that idea, hm? This game that I speak of included the searching for fruits to prevent the demise of a certain alien civilization.
This concept--breaking the ice with an opening cut-scene--is something I have not seen before. It's a new and potentially beneficial idea. Just like this, there are many more ideas out there that have yet to be tried, yielding new experiences that have yet to be enjoyed. So you're making a fighting game. Instead of giving each player an HP meter, perhaps you could try something different like giving the player fifty chances to get hit before he loses or making injured limbs deal weaker damage. If it's your game, feel free to try something new! The point is not to add something different just because. If you make use old techniques and paradigms, that's alright. Just don't assume that the old way of doing things is always the best way. And if you're after making excellent games, it would be ideal to give it your best.
Here are a few example questions that you could ask yourself in considering something new:
- Instead of 1st or 3rd person point of view, how about a 2nd person point of view for my game? The player would see the world not through the character's eyes, nor from an omniscient perspective, but would view the game's progress from the standpoint of some other mysterious character.
- In your adventure game, how about making the main character take a defensive position instead of an offensive one? It could be a small, feeble character (like a mouse) that won't fight offensively, but must keep himself out of danger.
- Instead of taking direct control of the main character, perhaps the player can change the character's surroundings.
- What if you made a game almost entirely based on dialogue! The main character would take actions according to the words you chose for him. For example, if the character told her friend that she wants to go to the movies with her, the character would indeed go to the movies, which would in turn affect the game's story somehow.
Making More
Improving upon old ideas and adding your own new ideas and concepts is a part of making your game something more for the player. New ideas seem to be the normal these days. At least here in the U.S., supposedly "new" ideas come up frequently, even daily, and hit the store shelves and TV commercial slots in the form a new gizmo than can enhance your life or a "magic potion" that can ease your burdens. Not all of these are mediocre, but not all of these are what they claim to be either (anyone who's bought a few infomercial products knows what I mean). Besides the small inventions, there are greater ones that have marked their place in history like the airplane, the microprocessor, and crustless bread.
But new doesn't always mean better. Sometimes what people want is not necessarily something new but something different: an old idea resurfaced or a new idea that's something special. Often what consumers want is something more. Making more means making something that exceeds what compares to it. As a game player, what do you look for in a game? Doing the same old thing as everyone else isn't going to bring many fans to your doorstep. But it's those trail blazers of game design--those producers, those graphic artists, those directors, those level designers--working together or as individuals, that have made something different and have made gaming history. Those shining trophies of the gaming world aren't just another game. They're not just another first person shooter or two-dimensional platformer. They are something different, something better, something more. Mass marketing helps too, of course. But if what you're selling isn't something different or something better, you won't get very far. Be bold; be creative.
The Bottom Line
We live in an age of constant change. Think back to when you first started playing video games. Do you remember what the popular game of the day was? If that game were introduced to the world today--without any foreknowledge of the franchise or characters thereof--I doubt it would receive as good reception as it did back then. Why? Because another game would have surpassed it by now. When you get to the bottom line, what makes those great games stand above the rest is either originality or improvement; either they brought something different to the gaming world or they improved upon current game mechanics. Think of your own favorite game, and see if these traits do not apply in some way. The lesson learned: if it's for the better, break away from tradition!
Let's not assume that the normal way is the best way anymore; it's time to give the world something better. I believe there is much more to be grasped and applied to video games that will create more enjoyable and pleasing game experiences, such as the world has not seen. These are only games, and I do not mean to imply that these virtual diversions can solve mankind's deeper problems. Only God can do that. But using the video game as a tool--even as a conduit to bring the Truth to this entertainment-influenced world--perhaps you and I can make a difference. A big difference. I'm excited to see where the gaming industry will go in the years to come--new places, new heights, new worlds. And maybe you'll be the one who will help it get there. -Amoeba of light
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Something That Doesn't Taste Like Chicken: Why Newness Matters
The fact is, if something is new to you, or anyone else for that matter, is has a potential to be inherently interesting for that very reason: because it is new. Anything that is new, novel, or original to someone is to some degree intriguing. If nothing else, you have to take that new information and connect it to what you already know, which takes some thought. As with games and any other form of entertainment, newness matters. It may be how the controls feel. It may be the characters' endeavors. It may be the setting or story. It may even just be the sound effects. Either way, newness can really help to create an interesting game experience for the one wielding the controller.
The Different Forms of "New"
How about we start with identifying the different forms that "newness" can take in video games. But let's make sure that you know what I mean by newness, first. Really, I just mean anything that the player has not experienced, or has not experienced that many times--whether it is an idea, a sound, a visual effect, or a mechanic.
Anything in a game can present something new to the player. But here, I'll separate such newness into different categories. Don't worry, you'll see what I mean.
Virtual and Original
The first category is originality. This is simply any new idea that applies to any aspect of a game. One example is a new game mechanic, such as taking control of a larva and eating through fruits to get to a certain "full" level (hey that's not a bad idea...). Another example is an interesting plotline that gets you thinking. Originality can affect the presentation of a game--such as in the marketing process--and get the attention of player's and press alike. An original idea stands out and turns heads; if such ideas are unmatched (or inadequately copied by other developers), they can help to make a game unique, legendary, or even console defining.Some examples of video games that have been original for me in concept, feel, controls, etc., are World of Goo, Super Monkey Ball 2, Pikmin 2, and Wii Sports Resort (if you've played Wii Sports Resort, you probably know that the motion controls were something new for a lot of players. Yes, I'm a Nintendo fan). The reason I say that these games have "been original for me," is because other players may not have had the same experiences as me. However, these games consist of rarely-seen concepts in general, so they could be tagged original for all. Don't forget that by new, I mean not only completely unseen before, but also rarely seen.
Many Colors, Shapes, and Sizes
The next category is variation. Variation is anything that changes or varies within the normal course of gameplay.It may be a randomized event or something that is brought about by a player's decisions. If this is done right, adding variables to a game can lengthen the game's life and occupy the player for greater periods of time. Have you ever played a game in the Super Smash Bros. series? No, that's not a trick question. But I'm guessing your answer is yes, you've played, or at least you have heard of and are familiar with the franchise. One thing that increases the quality of game play in Smash Bros. is indeed variation. Before each match, players have the option to choose whether they want to engage in a timed battle to get the most KO's before the timer hits 0 or duke it out in a stock battle in an effort to diminish the opponent's stock count. Along with this, the games in the franchise offer a library of items to utilize while fighting, which can be toggled "on" and "off" depending on your personal preference. Then you chose which stage to battle on. One can mix and match all these options to vary the game play experience...and as for the fighting itself? There are a lot of different things that can happen at nearly any time! In any game, variation need not come about by a player's choice, but pre-programmed random events can also--and often do--play a part (think of how the CPU driver responds on that racing game you play, how the enemies you encounter in a role playing game do not always appear in the same location, or even how your friend doesn't always have the same trick up his sleeve in your multiplayer matches).Variation of these sorts is a key factor is what differentiates among those games that you keep playing over and over again (games that, in fact, often include multiplayer matches if you think about it) and games with sections that you only play once or a few times. Whether pre-programmed or choice based, variation affects gameplay. And choices is where we'll turn to next.
Paper or Plastic?
Now we enter the realm of choices, which can actually be thought of as a type of variation. I mentioned in the last section that variation can come about by the game's programming, or by a player's own choice (a.k.a. input). Now let's look a little more at the subject of choices apart from variation.Any time a player is allowed to choose among two or more options in a game, he has a choice. Depending on what he or she chooses, the game should show the effect of the choice appropriately. And here is where several games show their faults. The more effort or work a certain choice requires, generally, the more pleasing or grand the effect should be from that choice. "Effort" can mean thought, speed, or skill. This is a fact that seems obvious, but in practice it is not as easy to carry out because one player's idea of a good reward may differ from another player's idea, and an obstacle that demands much effort from one player may be all too easy for another player with greater skill. And then there's the issue of what is a "proper" response or output from the game. For example, if you use your axe to chop down an evergreen, what audio clip should be used to emphasize the tree's thud to the ground? Should any sound effect be applied? What graphical effects should be shown? Should text appear dramatically onscreen to congratulation the player? Should we make use of a particle engine to create a shower of pine needles and dust when the tree hits the dirt? These are sort of artistic or aesthetic details, but things like this make a difference in the the gaming experience.
Testing and intuition can help the game developer make these choices. There should also be a good balance in regards to the number of choices present. The player shouldn't be overwhelmed. But if the developers can include many interesting choices with interesting effects without it taking away from the game experience, the game experience will instead be enhanced, and there's a good chance that the player will play the game for longer periods of time. When the player's choices make a solid difference, the presence of an abundance of such choices helps to facilitate a good and long-lasting learning curve. More on that in a bit.
Up Next, Our Feature Presentation
So we've looked at originality, and we've looked at variation as well as choices. The last form of newness that we'll explore is the new feature category, which is really an obvious element in video games. It includes anything new that is experienced or discovered by the player as he or she progresses through the game, such as a new game mode unlocked, a new area to explore or another part of the story revealed. Every video game includes this form of newness; when you unlock something, find out a new bit of information, or try out a new ability, you are experiencing what I call here a new feature.If every game includes new features, then the presence or absence of such features alone will not determine the quality of the game. One important aspect is the frequency at which you introduce these new features. Because this form of newness is closely related to the next section, (and because this topic alone merits another rather lengthy paragraph or two, which is for another time and place) let us head on over to the following subject--the subject of compiling newness into the most efficient and enjoyable form possible: that is, the subject of the learning curve.
Not to Strong, Not to Subtle: The Learning Curve
The Learning Curve is a term that describes the player's progress through the game as he learns the ropes of how to play. I'll give you my definition: the learning curve is (ideally) an arc on a graph that represents how many new things the player learns and experiences as time passes. I say "ideally" because a curve that sort of resembles an arc is an indicator that the player has had a mostly good gaming experience, as far as learning goes. My definition is adapted from a different definition, one from a book that I read which covers game design.1 Take a look at the figure below.
This graph outlines a player's gaming experience for three different games (shown by the three different colored lines on the graph). The x-axis of the graph, or the bottom edge, stands for the time that has passed from the first time the player tried out the game to the day when he will play the game no more. The y-axis stands for the amount of new features, which means of course the new things learned or experienced. So taking from that information, one can see that the steeper parts of a line indicate that the player was learning more things in a shorter period of time. Let me tell you what I mean by "learning." In my description of the learning curve, learning is either one of two things: it's either acquiring new information (finding new information about the area, discovering how the environment acts, etc.) or it's finding out how to perform an action better (that is, becoming more adept at using your actions and abilities). Experiencing something new may be hearing a new sound effect or a new control scheme while playing a game. So, those three--experiencing, learning new information, and learning how to play better--comprise the new feature category because it's all learning something new. Got that? Okay. That may have been a lot of information to swallow, and if so, that's a prime example of the importance of the learning curve.
The three lines on the graph describe a game with a good learning curve, a game with learning curve that is too steep, and a game with a learning curve which forms an arc that settles into a nearly straight line. The green line, which is very steep, represents a poorly developed game in regards to developing the player's skill level. Apparently the game occupied the player for only four hours.That's because the player was learning too much new information in too little time (if this new information was, for example, about the story, or if the player was just exploring the area and discovering more about his surroundings, there wouldn't have been a problem. The issue was that the player was required to take on too many new abilities and was overwhelmed). This is not an uncommon incident in the opening stages of a game when the player is just learning how to play.The yellow line represents a game that got boring quickly. We see the curve starting to arch, then...well it turns into a flat line. What started out as an engaging puzzle game fizzled out to a repetitious endeavor because the player wasn't being introduced to enough new features; the player's skill level wasn't improving and there were few new puzzle types to try out.
But the last game--the one represented by the red line--played pretty well. Starting out with a moderate slope, the line slowly forms into a curve, and then a line, and finally terminates. So the player is introduced with neither too much not too little things to learn, and enjoys learning, trying, and improving until near the end of the game (where the player experiences a slowdown as shown by the flatness of the line). This is a good curve overall, representing a game with a good sequence of feature introduction.
Well, does the learning curve really affect all games that much? I think it has a great effect on the gaming experiencing. From my personal game time, one gem that I discovered that had an exceptional learning curve was Super Mario Galaxy for the Wii. The frequency at which one learns new abilities and information is one element that gave this product such high critic scores. Compare some of your own favorites, and I think you'll see the significance of a good learning curve in video games.
Wrapping It Up
If you were willing to consider my ideas as a reader, I think you now have more insight on how and why newness influences the quality of play. By all this I do not mean to say that familiarity and "oldness," if you will, poorly affects a game. There is certainly a right place for that, and, in fact, all games have to have some measure of familiarity--if not, to what we would compare them?
In review:
- Newness is anything that the player has not experienced, or has not experienced that many times--whether it is an idea, a sound, a visual effect, or a mechanic.
- Originality is any new or uncommon idea that applies to any aspect of a video game.
- Variation is anything that changes or varies within the normal course of gameplay, whether it comes about by the game's program alone, or by a player's choices.
- Choices can cause variation and are the decisions that the player makes and inputs into the game via the controller, keyboard, etc.
- New Features comprise anything new that is learned or experienced, including the developing of skills by learning how to better use the given abilities.
- The Learning Curve (ideally) resembles an arc on a graph that represents how many new things the player learns and experiences as time passes.
If there are any readers who still haven't a clue why I mentioned poultry in the post title, I'll shed some light on that right now. When anyone tries some new grub in the meat category, it seems that a popular response turns out to be, "tastes like chicken." At least where I'm from, that is. So I was drawing a relation between the common taste that people experience when trying such food items, to the possible experience that one could have when playing something too familiar.
A key is finding the right balance and giving the player something interesting to play with. Focus on the basics of game play, and use your imagination and thought to create something enjoyable. And don't forget to spice it up a bit. -Amoeba of Light
1 The book am I referring to is the following: Habgood, and Mark Overmars. The Gamer Maker's Apprentice: Game Development for Beginners. New York: Apress, 2006. Print.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
Welcome To Game Fruit
What is This?
Game Fruit is a blog where I share my insights on game study as it applies to video games. In expository essays, I'll show you some of the things I've learned about what makes games fun, what makes them faulty, and how you can improve your own projects. Not a game maker? Even if you only enjoy playing, you may still find some posts to be quite tasty. You can browse this page for posts or use the Blog archive to find something that interests you. So take a look around and have a bite or two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)