Variety Friday: Retro Games vs Modern Games

No, I’m not going on some rant about how retro games are infinitely superior to modern ones.   Yet I am also not going to go on a rampage about how modern ones are infinitely superior to games from 10+ years ago.  Instead, I’m talking about the differences and how each is superior in their own way. 

Now while there are clearly very large differences in games from over 10 years ago, and games from 6 months ago, those aren’t exact what I am going to be focusing on.  Yes, the graphics are infinitely superior, and you don’t have to pay for games in quarters, I’m going to be focusing on the actual gameplay aspects.  Now, let’s hop into a time machine and jump back about 11 years ago.  It is a time of great innovation and huge technological advancement (I so didn’t steal that line from Deus Ex: HR) people are stepping into the PC market with next gen hardware, while some without said hardware.  More and more 3D games were being released for the personal computer, no longer requiring gaming consoles.  Now, I’m not going to focus on it too much since I already gave it its own article, but Deus Ex.  It was a 3D game which can support resolutions nearly unheard of back then.  But what really made it shine was the freedom of gameplay.  Even today we have tons of linear shooters with outright pointless stories, yet deus ex did better than our industry today does, by making not only an FPSRPG, but making a game which lets the player decide their fate, and the fate of the world.

See now that is something the industry today has still not grasped, and that is giving the player not just the freedom of choosing multiple options, but simply letting them play how they wish and then making sure the game revolves around how they do so.  Even better than Bioware and their famous dialog system, it doesn’t just revolve around dialog options marked good or bad, it revolves around how the player plays the game, and their actions towards NPCs.  The reason this is superior is because one, it reflects the actual player much better than a few dialog options, because they do what they believe is right, or wrong depend on how they play.  Then the world simply merges with their choices and not with simple dialog options with action in between, frankly it makes for a more engaging experience.  And two being what I hinted at in one, being that if you really think about it, Mass Effect’s story boils down to dialog options advancing the story, with near pointless action in between, the story is told through dialog alone, while in deus ex it allows the story to not only be told through dialog, but actions and your reactions to said actions.  Now you may give me crap about comparing an Old Stealth RPG against a modern action RPG, but at the core, both games are trying very hard to tell stories, and both of them succeed, just one more than the other.

Now, stepping forward a few years to 2003, was the release of one of the, if not the first FPSMMO, Planetside.  It brought FPS multiplayer to a new level nearly never before seen!  Letting near infinite players battle over large continents, requiring each player to fill a role, weather infantry, gunner, pilot, anti-vehicle, heavy infantry, energy gatherer, repairer, and etc.  Allowing players to play in many ways, across large battlefields with skill based progression, allowing you to spec in what you want to do.  This showed how to do large scale multiplayer right, sure there is MAG with its 128 v 128, but you can’t really beat the thrill of Planetside, since there is much more land, better skill progression, and overall a more enjoyable experience which is still fun to play today!

Now, heading farther back in time to the great days of the N64, the days where Nintendo knew how to make games, and had partners who also knew how to make games…good ones.  For this example, I’m going to first be talking about Banjo Kazooie.  What I personally loved about it, was how it conveyed the feeling of an entire world, while still maintaining a classic cartoony feeling, which surprisingly worked out well!  The wacky characters were great and really helped advance the story, and the world and sceneries also helped.  Some (keyword being some) games in modern times really should try taking themselves not seriously and trying to convey a story in a world which isn’t related to earth today (AKA modern, sci-fi, or medieval…or fantasy as well for that matter).  One really great example of a non-realistic game telling a story through the scenery and atmosphere is Brutal Legend.  It taking place in an alternate metal universe was a great idea which really shined, and the atmosphere in the game was great, and it shows how not all games need to be serious, to be good.

My other example being Ocarina of Time, which showed how puzzle elements should be implemented into games (I’m looking at you Valve).  Now, I’m going to take a long shot and compare Ocarina of Time to Portal 2.  What the games have in common is how they both focus on puzzles, and they both have a story.  But Zelda is much more than that; it has much more freedom of play, side things to do, and frankly much more gameplay even after Portal 2 co-op.  Now, I’m going against myself here on this one and I’m not going to come out and say Ocarina of Time is better than Portal 2 because they are just so different, but what Ocarina of Time did do, is incorporated puzzles perfectly into a game with combat, something that hasn’t been done so well over the past years, for example Half-Life 2 and the pointless physics puzzles.  But now Nintendo is just milking The Legend of Zelda franchise and the series is dead to me so moving on.

Now moving back to even older games such as Super Mario Bros and Missile Command.  What these retro games excelled at most is doing what I call “Tell story through implied narrative” they don’t actually give you all the context of the story, they set you on a goal, and you have to figure out the story for yourself, but what many fail to notice is how the games do in fact have aspects as games today.  Such as Missile Command, it has the same moral choice system as Bioware games, you need to choose if you try to save all cities, or focus on defending one and let the others perish, you may not notice it, but the moral choice is there.  Then in Mario, the game has implied narrative and simply gives you one goal of saving the princess, but you have to figure out how to complete this goal for yourself, it is a great example of letting a player figure out how to play.

Now, again I’m not saying one is superior to the other, but for this industry to truly advance, we need to look back at our classics and move on from them, because some of them are great, and are still great.  

Variety Friday: Game Design and Balancing

Alright, what I am covering is a little more complicated than the title.  In general I’m going to be talking about some of the challenges that come into play when designing gameplay, levels, and balancing.  The idea to cover this topic came to me while I was DMing a game of DnD and added a player in half way through, and noticed how drastically it changes the game.  Similar problems arise in game design today and I am going to try and cover some of these problems, as covering all of them could easily turn into a book.

First off, designing how a game plays isn’t as easy as simply choosing how you want a game to play and doing exactly that.  Sure you may keep some of the same concepts, but rarely, if ever, do you keep the exact same system you planned to start with.  This is as true for AAA titles as it is for Indies, you always need to adjust your gameplay to “mold” with the rest of your game, because if your gameplay doesn’t match the feel of your art, levels, and enemies, then it wouldn’t be a very fun game and that is almost always true.  Think of Mirror’s Edge, but instead of taking place on rooftops and in buildings, it took place in a farm land, do you think that would be very fun if it still had the same controls and parkour as Mirror’s Edge did?  No.  Though that is a pretty drastic comparison, try Black Ops taking place in much larger maps, at its current state it wouldn’t work.  You would need a way to choose where to spawn, vehicles, and etc. to be able to traverse over a square mile of terrain.

But anyway the point is that one challenge of creating a game is simply making gameplay work with the rest of the game.  Think of a game as an awesome steampunk tank, each golden and/or brass gear represents the art and design of the game, as well as the engine, while the steam represents the gameplay.  And when it all works, you get one bad ass KABOOOOOOOM!!!  But gameplay isn’t the only problem, it is only one of many, another is level design.  Again this needs to take all other parts into account; it must not only work with, but assist gameplay, while also catering to the player.  You need to have enough room for everything, you need to have enough variety to keep everything interesting to the player, and if one of these doesn’t work, well it’s not received well by players.  One example being Dragon Age 2 and its repetitive reuse of the same dungeons and landscapes, this makes it so the game highly lacks variety and after seeing the same map multiple times, even if there are different levels, it can just get boring.  This is also a challenge for DMs as far as DnD is concerned, because you want to convey your story with the maps, while allowing enough room for combat, and traps.

Now, for the biggest of them all, balancing.  Balancing can mean many different things depending on the genre, yet it applies to all of them.  First let’s simply talk about non-RPG and non-RTS games, since they require their own different forum of balancing.  Action and shooter games require balancing in the form of making sure enemies can’t overpower you and making sure guns don’t do too much or too little damage.  But again, this all is determined by the game, you can’t have enemies from borderlands do as much damage as in COD.  You can’t have the tactical Rainbow Six: Vegas co-op in a Halo Campaign.  Because a lot of game characteristics are specific to the game, especially existing IPs, you can’t drastically change the game too much, or it will be too far away from the core concepts gamers come to expect.  Now why this can be challenging for these genres is you can’t have a game too challenging or make the player feel too strong.  Finding the perfect balance between difficulty and not impossible and fun isn’t as easy as it may sound.

Now, RTS games are a whole nother story, because this isn’t simple enemy balancing, but you need to make sure each unit has the correct attack and health relative to its production cost.  Not only, but you also need to have special units with special abilities which aren’t too abusive, yet can give you an edge if used right.  Balancing strategy games is a strategy game all to itself, because you need to keep in mind all the possible strategical uses, which is why it can sometimes be hard to balance strategy games as a single person, because you could lean towards overpowering units to your own preferences, without even noticing it.

Now, for the big one, RPGs.  Although there are many kinds of RPGs, I still hold the opinion that balancing them is harder than in any other game.  Because first, you need to take into account a lot more variables, such as the players’ levels, classes, amount of players or teammates, story, and skills.  While not all of these apply in all games, it is still a general list of some of the biggest variables.  Not only that but you have so many things that can require changing, such as amount of enemies, their levels, and their roles, traps and other environmental challenges, while also the level itself.  Making all these things work can be very challenging and can also change how the player plays, or if they play at all (I’m a DM, trust me)!  Because you can’t make encounters too challenging, yet a simple variable change can completely change the balancing of a level!  As for my example, I learned that adding an extra player requires a lot of addition to enemy numbers and their power.  While you also need to make sure to give players choices in how they play, because no good RPG game is complete without choices in not just dialog, but gameplay.  You need to allow them to play ranged, magic, stealth, allow them to use their environment, look for treasure and become rich and etc. and you need to incorporate all of this into level design, including how dungeons are laid out and what monsters are where.

So ultimately, a good game has every aspect of it working together in unison, because if they don’t the game will almost always not be as good.  Because if the steampunk tank doesn't have steam, it can't fuction, yet without it's gears turning, it isn't as efficient or can't work at all.

Variety Friday: Looking Back, Deus Ex

Okay, first off, yes, I didn’t put up a Variety Friday last week, but I doubt any of you actually look forward to these articles, so deal with it, people get busy.  Anyway;

There have been a lot of great games from years ago that have been overlooked or simply missed by a lot of people, while also loved by many others.  Well this article is to look back on one of those great, industry changing games, Deus Ex.  Deus Ex was released in 2000 for Windows and Mac, was developed by Ion Storm, and released by Eidos.

What makes Deus Ex so great is how it combined RPG and shooter elements, better than most games nowadays do.  Deus Ex’s main focus is giving the player the ability to choose how he would like to complete each objective.  You can lock pick your way around enemies and into rooms with some rare items.  Could use your computer knowledge to hack into cameras and find where enemies are located, as well as turning the cameras off, or even turn the enemy turrets and bots against them.  You could use your electronics knowledge to hack into other rooms and safes.  Sneak around the majority of enemies, pick them off from a distance with a silenced sniper, or just go in guns and explosions blazing!  The game gives you near unparalleled freedom to do what you would like. 

The main RPG element the game boasts is its skill system.  The skill system is made up of 11 different skills which you can level up with “Skill Points” which you get for playing the game.  They aren’t from solely killing enemies though, but also finding creative solutions and discovering new areas.  The skills you choose directly reflect the way you’ll end up playing the game.  Do you choose swimming and lock picking to try and get around most enemies?  Computers and Electronics to turn the enemies own security against them?  Or Rifles and Explosives to blow through everything and one in your way?  Those are just a few examples of how the skills in Deus Ex can be used, and what’s great about the game is experimenting with different trained skills.

The other RPG element is the augmentations.  Augmentations allow you to improve many different attributes such as being able to carry heavier items and taking large falls and jumping 10 feet in the air, to turning invisible and regenerating health.  You gain these augmentations by finding augmentation canisters throughout the game (a lot of which require you to use skills to get to) and then choosing one of two options from the canister, for a specific augmentation slot (which represent different parts of the body, such as eyes, arms, brain, etc.). But the real choice is how you will upgrade each augmentation.  Throughout the game you will also find upgrade canisters which you can spend on upgrading a single augmentation, a maximum of 3 times.  Since these canisters are limited you really need to choose which augmentations to upgrade depending on your play style.

Augmentation Screen

The game plays as a first person shooter, but is different from traditional shooting mechanics because you need to hover over your target for a few seconds (if using a ranged weapon that is) to lock on to him and to get better accuracy.  And the game also uses health packs instead of the lame “Wipe blood of face” method we have come to know today.  As far as weapons go, you have a large selection from shot guns, flame throwers, rocket launchers, pistols, smgs, and many different melee weapons (including the iconic crow bar, which is the first weapon you find lying next to you when you start the game).  But, due to your limited inventory space, you need to choose which weapon(s) are your mains, and then make sure to keep stocked up on the correct type of ammo.  You can also improve weapons with findable upgrades such as lasers, scopes, and silencers.  The game also throws in moral choices into the combat, because you have an array of lethal and non-lethal weapons, so you need to choose if you are going for the quick kill shot, or the more difficult non-lethal takedown.

As far as the story goes, it is like Bioware games in that there is a full dialog system, and that your choices do have consequences, but it goes more than that, because you can feel free to kill just about anyone at anytime, and sometimes choices aren’t clearly presented and you just have to try your idea out and see how it works out.  You play as a UNATCO (United Nations Anti-Terrorist Coalition) agent named JC Denton (though they never explain what JC stands for)who is first sent out on a mission to clear out terrorists from an island to try and find a vaccine for a deadly virus.  But as you progress you uncover many conspiracies and need to choose where your loyalties lie.  The other main character is JC’s brother who plays a large part in the story as well.  I don’t want to spoil anything, but it is government conspiracy heavy, also, you get to go to Hong Kong.

Ultimately this is probably the best game I have ever played, even surpassing DA: Origins and Heavy Rain.  But, even when you beat the game it doesn’t need to end there, because there are a few great mods for the game that are worth checking out, specifically the best which I found to ne the cleverly named “Nameless Mod” which is a completely different story spanning hours upon hours of gameplay.  The Nameless Mod takes place in a “physical embodiment” of an internet forum, similar to Tron or The Matrix.  The Nameless Mod is probably one of the best mods I have played for any game, since besides different story arcs and endings; it also features 59 maps, 20 new weapons, over 14 hours of voice acting, and near 100 unique tracks of music.  Hell, this mod would be a better sequel to the game than the actual sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War was.  But anyway, what I am saying is if you haven’t played Deus Ex yet, GO DO IT!  It is amazing even by today’s standards, 11 years later. 

You can find the complete collection including Deus Ex, and the (not as good) sequel, Invisible War for less than $20 physically, or for $20 on steam.

------

Also, just to anger John Callahan (Who I just noticed has the initials JC like the character in Deus Ex) I would just like to point out I DID try Diablo 2 and it looked HORRIBLE and was near unplayable looking like that with its horrendously small resolution.  Deus Ex was released before Diablo 2 and it still looks perfectly playable and fine, and naturally supports higher, widescreen resolutions, while also having some nice mods to upgrade the graphics even more (which I am not sure if Diablo 2 has or not), so yea, Just Sayin.

Variety Friday: Sequels

E3 is just around the corner, and I could be doing another one of those “E3 Prediction” articles which are all over the internet as this week’s Variety Friday….well I’m not.  Instead I am going to talk about a more general topic, Sequels, how they can be good, and how they can be bad.  Seemed appropriate with all the sequels being announced in the next week.

As far as sequels go, you can pretty much classify them into three categories, ones that are made solely by studios for money, ones to continue a story in a trilogy or etc., and long overdue sequels.  So, first I will talk about the sequels which are mostly done for money.  In my personal opinion, these include Call of Duty, and even Assassin’s Creed.  What makes this type unique is how there is nearly always a new title every year, and how the mechanics usually don’t differ that much.

The reason these are generally made is because they are a well known IP and the developers, and more importantly, the publishers and investors, knows that they will make money.  Why these are bad for the industry is that these types of games can only advance so far, add so many features before they pretty much are reskinning the same game over, and over again.  Also, as more and more of the same, repetitive game comes out; the market will grow less and less, an example being Call of Duty.  I’ve been talking to a few friends who aren’t getting MW3 because they have had enough of the same repetitive game, and I agree with them.  But I have also talked to other people who are buying the game solely because it is a Call of Duty game.  Basically, COD is no longer just a shooter, but more of a sports game, because a new one comes out yearly with small changes and a large fan base who buys every game.

The second type is games which require sequels, such as the Mass Effect and Half-Life.  What makes these games different is how  people want the sequels, because they advance the story and the game, or in other cases, the lore of the world.  But, unlike the previously mentioned sequels, these have more room for innovation and changing the game, such as in Mass Effect.  The original was a lot more RPG based, while the 2^nd one was more shooter based and open to other gamers, and it worked to bring more into the series.  But, it doesn’t always work, like in the case of Dragon Age 2.  They tried to open the game up to more players, but ended up screwing up all the hype there was for the game, and not delivering on bring back the lore of the original Dragon Age.

As long as they don’t overdo these games, or completely screw them up, they can make great games and series’ and they really show what sequel should be.  They should be an expansion of the original game’s world, focusing on the story and the lore.  These are good for the industry as they help not only advance in forms of innovation, but story telling.  Yet, they can be very bad when you screw up a pre-existing series, a good series.

The third type can either end up as great or horrible games and there usually isn’t that much room for a middle ground.  These are series to games that were released years ago and have been in large need of a new game, these are usually great hits because fans have been dying for more, and not only is there much more time for development and polished, but also a lot of time and advances in technology and ways of doing things in the industry.  New examples are Duke Nukem, and Deus Ex: Human Revolution (since Invisible War doesn’t count as a sequel, in my opinion).  These types of games can almost be as good for the industry as new IPs.  Because they pretty much reinvent great games, and usually/hopefully, become another great game.  But the problem results in if the revamped game becomes a success and then they start milking it for money.  What makes it successful is it being one great sequel to a great game, and either quit there and wait a few years before making another game, or just taking years to make sure you make one great game.

Though there can be combinations of two of these sequel types.  The Assassins Creed series is a mix of yearly releases along with having an advancing story.  Or Ghost Recon which is similar to the Call of Duty method, but is more story based and does have more innovation.  There are also mixes of progressive story games and long needed sequels, such as The Witcher, the first game came out 4 years ago, and the second recently came out continuing the story, but also advancing on basic elements such as combat.  Even games like Batman Arkham City and Prototype 2 fall into the category of continuing the story and lore, but not being instant sequels.

So to recap, I’m not necessarily saying one type of sequel is superior to the other (but the COD type is not) I am just pointing out that the COD version will only hurt itself in time.  Older games need to come out with well made sequels, and trilogies need to continue to be what they are, as long as they are good.  Next week’s Variety Friday will probably have something more to do with E3, and we will see what that is.

Variety Friday: RPGs

I recently decided to give tabletop Dungeons and Dragons a try and have been loving it so far. It then got me thinking the state of RPGs in the currently gaming industry, and, specifically, how there seems to be a lot less traditional RPGs coming out now as of, say, 4-5 years ago.  I don’t mean Final Fantasy 13; I mean more like the original Final Fantasies, The Witcher, and The Elder Scrolls.

Now specifically I am talking about the lack of said RPGs on consoles (as I am majorly a console gamer).  If you look at the release schedule for the past months (again, for consoles), the best you will probably find is Dragon Age 2, which I don’t think really counts as a tradition RPG, because a lot of the good RPG elements from Origins were taken away with 2.  The point I am getting at is that console RPGs seem to be slowly fading away, and I contribute this to a few things. 

First is that the market for console RPGs seems to be going away.  With the amount of money Call of Duty and similar games are making, studios are telling developers “Yeah, that’s a great idea, but our stock holders want money, so go make a game like Call of Duty”.  Due to the limitations based on large studios by investors, publishers, and etc. to make games that sell well, the idea of a “Great Game” isn’t as well received as it used to be, people no longer want to take risks, so instead they misunderstand their entire market and want clones, expecting them to sell well.

That is probably part of the reason why Dragon Age 2 was so different from the original, was that they wanted to appeal to broader audiences, but screwed up, and being under strict deadlines couldn’t have helped.  The second reason I can find is that what IS demanded by modern RPGs is a very tall order indeed.  I don’t think most developers are willing to put so much time and effort into a gamble as big as a new IP.  That is why I honestly believe that good modern RPGs are probably better coming from indie studios.  Now so far the only way that a series of RPGs have been good and from a large developer is if they solely focus on RPGs.  My main example being CD Projekt, and my other being Bethesda (who may have done some other games in the past, but still mostly make RPGs).  CD Projekt recently released the sequel to the loved but unknown game The Witcher, and from what I’ve heard, The Witcher 2 is a great computer RPG, with full support for an Xbox controller which gives it the possibility of a future console port.

Because they focus on one game at a time, it really allows them to take the time needed to make a good RPG.  Then my other example, Bethesda, the developers of the very popular franchise, The Elder Scrolls, who also happen to be some of the only people releasing a traditional RPG for consoles anytime soon, and I am looking forward to trying it.  These have been two developers who stick to the traditional RPG style and who I admire for doing so. 

Now, why traditional RPGs are going away seems to be due to the mixing of RPG Progression and other game elements, for example, Mass Effect.  Specifically recently, a lot of games have been mixing RPG elements with other game elements such as First Person shooters.  Ultimately this allows a compromise between Developers and Publishers, which is appealing to the RPG fans and the Shooters, which is exactly what Mass Effect 2 did.  While Mass Effect 1 was much heavily RPG focused, Mass Effect 2 was essentially dumbed down to accommodate more people, something which usually ruins games (*cough*Deus Ex: Invisible War *cough*) but actually worked quite well, even if it didn’t feel as in depth.  Though Mass Effect isn’t the only game that combines another game genre and RPGs, there is Fallout, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, KOTOR years ago, and even in the MMORPG coming from Bioware, SW:TOR.  Though The Old Republic is staying very much and RPG, it still has some elements which makes it more.

Now, I would like to clarify that I’m not saying combining elements of multiple game genres is bad; on the contrary it is actually very good for the industry!  Though what I am saying is I would like to see more traditional RPGs, and not the “Interactive Movies” that Square Enix tries to pull off as RPGs these days.  But it isn’t always good, in cases such as Dragon Age.  In my opinion, Dragon Age: Origins was such a great game!  It may have had slow combat but I was fine with it, I loved how the character wasn’t voiced, so it didn’t seem like you were playing someone else’s story, but yours.  Then there was the great cast of characters and all the choices, it was one of the closest things to my perfect RPG I have played (A full article of my opinions of Origins can be found here).  Then there was Dragon Age 2…a game which tore out the strategic combat for hack-n-slash, it made you play someone else’s story, made loot pretty pointless and over half the game seemed like (or was) pointless side quests.  I didn’t start really enjoying the game till the last few hours of it.  This is a great example of how mixing elements, and especially trying to make RPG fans and Sword Flailing Action fans happy at the same time, can fail horribly.

I see the RPG branching into two paths as the industry progresses.  There are the traditional RPGs which I believe will rise up once more and play a much larger part in the industry than they do now.  And then there will be the hybrids which include games such as Mass Effect.  Though neither of these are “Better than the other” it all comes down to opinion, as more gamers start to try new things, and more developers start to take risks, then the industry can truly grow into something great.