FADE IN:
EXT. OLIVEHURST AVE MORNING
The sunlight has just shown itself, lighting the street. COMMON, a young man in a grocery uniform, sits by the bus stop. His breathing can be seen in the cold air.
COMMON (V.O.)
This is the story of my life. I want
to tell you about grandiose feats,
about momentous events and great deeds,
but there has never been much in this
small town to mesmerize you with.
An early morning car clearly headed for work rolls by and COMMON looks up to see the driver, a man in his thirties looking straight ahead, focused.
COMMON (V.O.)
(continuing)
I don’t know his name but every day I
usually see him about this time. 7:30.
The bus arrives, stops, and opens its door. The BUS DRIVER, a woman in her forties, smiles her usual exuberant smile as she stares down the steps of the door.
BUS DRIVER
Good morning COMMON.
COMMON fakes his smile while climbing the steps; his only response to her being a nod. Popping in two quarters:
COMMON (V.O.)
That was the bus driver lady. Everyday
it’s always the same “good morning” to
whomever got on her bus. I don’t know
her name and the morning shift is the
only time I see her.
The bus is mostly empty except for the four people there; an OLD WOMAN in thrift clothing, looking blankly out the window.
COMMON (V.O.)
That old lady has always been on this
bus. She was here before me and
COMMON (V.O.)
(continuing)
probably will still be after I’m gone.
Just an old woman who keeps to herself.
TWO YOUNG WOMEN dressed also in some sort of work uniform, both talking in a low unintelligible tone. Clearly occupied in their conversation.
COMMON (V.O.)
a middle-aged man. COMMON heads to the back of the bus and sits. The seat is slightly worn.
COMMON (V.O.)
This is where I always sit. It’s
my spot on the bus. You see everyone
of us has their spot that they always
sit in. It’s almost an unspoken rule.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Death of the Game Designers
I was heading out of high school at the onset of the internet boom and didn’t have much access to information about getting into the gaming industry. Nowadays there are videogame degrees offered by every private university that has popped up around the country. There are exclusive websites dedicated to the industry. There are small companies emerging all throughout the states and around the world. At night commercials about creating the next great videogame air on television, attempting to recruit more students. In all that there exists an overwhelming sensation about videogame truly being mainstream. Yet, I cannot help but think that perhaps we all are being misled to a certain extent. The videogame industry going mainstream has its consequences. For the game designer it has been the equivalent to a catastrophic meteorite on dinosaurs.
A long time ago in a place forgotten by history game designers existed and they made videogames. They came up with ideas and implemented them into interactive little hobbies that can be enjoyed by others. They dreamed of spaceships and aliens, adventures into unknown worlds, epic struggles of war and peace; videogame was a brave new world with infinite possibilities and dreams held only by the realm of technology. Most importantly it held the hope of a world in which man can truly call his own. These game designers helped create an industry.
No one would recognize such a game designer today. They are an extinct breed. Videogames today do not adhere to man’s creativity and attempt to harness the heart of why videogames were produced in the first place: interactive entertainment or in gamer’s term gameplay. Along some point in going mainstream the gaming industry moved towards economic principles of minimal cost and maximum profit. Videogame became another medium in the eternal struggle for fortune. Any successful game would be reproduced and copied until it was milked dry. It was a safe route to keep a game company afloat and at the same time capitalize in on the profits by producing the special edition, champion edition, turbo edition, super edition, super champion edition, super special champion turbo edition ,I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and so on.
The blatant attempt to mass produce whatever might sell tarnished the industry. How do I know? I am the market that videogame catered to its entire existence, I am those little boys that shared Nintendo cartridges with their friends from school, I am those kids that knew every pokemon by heart, I am those guys that lived rpgs religiously in a dark room for days, I am a child of the gaming industry. It’s no secret that if a small company is to survive it has to be led by an insanely creative game designer, producing an instant classic. It’s also no secret that to make profits you churn out a new edition of that instant classic every year. Eidos survived almost exclusively on the back of Tomb Raider. The next generation of game designers is the only remedy for an industry in which all games adhere to the following: if you played one game you played them all. This is especially true in certain genres. Cough, cough at Grand Theft Auto and its clones. You know who you are.
The next generation of game designers must be allowed into the gaming industry. If you’re not a programmer or a graphics designer you are of no use. Videogame is my blood and it is the most sorrowful emotion ever to realize that what you grew up on, what you know like second nature, what you aspire to become, has no place for you. I contend that all things would not exist without the vision to implement them, that creativity in itself is a skill far harder to obtain and even more difficult to refine. There can be no soldiers without generals, no government without politicians, no movies without directors, no society without laws and no existence without entity.
There is a glimmer of hope because while it’s a slow trend it’s becoming evident that nowadays a game designer needs to have OUTSIDE interests and knowledge. Why? It’s very simple. Videogames are about OUTSIDE interests and knowledge. Videogames have to be about something other than itself. It can range from race cars to farming turnips to killing a man. Beyond expertise in a certain field the most important trait that defines a game designer is the understanding of interaction between one individual and many. Videogame has to create a world in which expertise takes place. Thus, it comes as no surprise that many great videogames were headed by people with the understanding of a SOCIAL DYNAMIC. A perfect example is Shinji Mikami and his Resident Evil creation. He was heavily influenced by cult horror films and understood how to time and pace horror scenes much like a movie director. Alone in the Dark came out as the first horror game of the survival nature but it lacked that understanding. Another example, Hideo Kojima studied to be a film director initially. Many of his videogames deal with philosophical and social issues weaved into an intricate story. I have an inclination that Solid Snake is really based on Ernesto Che Guevara the famous revolutionary and not David Hayter best known for playing the Guyver before voicing Snake (joke). It would come as no surprise that movie directors and screenwriters will become an integral part of the development process in the near future. It already can be seen in games like John Woo Presents Stranglehold.
The reality is game designers cannot be the old lone programmer working in his free time. Neither can he be a programmer or graphics designer promoted from within the company. Game designers have to specialize to meet the growing complexity of videogame development. The problem is there is no definite route for aspiring game designers despite the obvious consequences of neglecting game designers while going corporate i.e. producing videogames that are exact clones of others that no one will want to buy or play. Being test boys doesn’t cut it. Game designers cannot program a code or produce a drawing or perhaps even budget the finances. Game designers do not have a technical skill that can be used mechanically eight hours a day. All they have are visions and a pen. Game designers seem unnecessary. Creativity is seen as an asset but not a skill. It’s the “fun part” for the development team and not considered work. Furthermore, companies do not understand social dynamics involved in videogames despite the most successful game designers proving it beyond a doubt. The result is up and coming game designers are not given the opportunity to create the next generation of videogames. Videogames become cliché and boring. It becomes a generic medium and loses those qualities that made us all love videogames in the first place.
Here is my proposal of a standard for aspiring game designers. This is their academic program for a skill like learning C++ for the programmer and Maya for the graphics artist; study liberal arts. Great game designers should come from philosophical, psychological, historical and english educational backgrounds. It is these that have the best understanding of social dynamic. It is actually men in these fields that have shaped the world in which we live. There is no better option than to go to them for creating a virtual world.
A long time ago in a place forgotten by history game designers existed and they made videogames. They came up with ideas and implemented them into interactive little hobbies that can be enjoyed by others. They dreamed of spaceships and aliens, adventures into unknown worlds, epic struggles of war and peace; videogame was a brave new world with infinite possibilities and dreams held only by the realm of technology. Most importantly it held the hope of a world in which man can truly call his own. These game designers helped create an industry.
No one would recognize such a game designer today. They are an extinct breed. Videogames today do not adhere to man’s creativity and attempt to harness the heart of why videogames were produced in the first place: interactive entertainment or in gamer’s term gameplay. Along some point in going mainstream the gaming industry moved towards economic principles of minimal cost and maximum profit. Videogame became another medium in the eternal struggle for fortune. Any successful game would be reproduced and copied until it was milked dry. It was a safe route to keep a game company afloat and at the same time capitalize in on the profits by producing the special edition, champion edition, turbo edition, super edition, super champion edition, super special champion turbo edition ,I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, and so on.
The blatant attempt to mass produce whatever might sell tarnished the industry. How do I know? I am the market that videogame catered to its entire existence, I am those little boys that shared Nintendo cartridges with their friends from school, I am those kids that knew every pokemon by heart, I am those guys that lived rpgs religiously in a dark room for days, I am a child of the gaming industry. It’s no secret that if a small company is to survive it has to be led by an insanely creative game designer, producing an instant classic. It’s also no secret that to make profits you churn out a new edition of that instant classic every year. Eidos survived almost exclusively on the back of Tomb Raider. The next generation of game designers is the only remedy for an industry in which all games adhere to the following: if you played one game you played them all. This is especially true in certain genres. Cough, cough at Grand Theft Auto and its clones. You know who you are.
The next generation of game designers must be allowed into the gaming industry. If you’re not a programmer or a graphics designer you are of no use. Videogame is my blood and it is the most sorrowful emotion ever to realize that what you grew up on, what you know like second nature, what you aspire to become, has no place for you. I contend that all things would not exist without the vision to implement them, that creativity in itself is a skill far harder to obtain and even more difficult to refine. There can be no soldiers without generals, no government without politicians, no movies without directors, no society without laws and no existence without entity.
There is a glimmer of hope because while it’s a slow trend it’s becoming evident that nowadays a game designer needs to have OUTSIDE interests and knowledge. Why? It’s very simple. Videogames are about OUTSIDE interests and knowledge. Videogames have to be about something other than itself. It can range from race cars to farming turnips to killing a man. Beyond expertise in a certain field the most important trait that defines a game designer is the understanding of interaction between one individual and many. Videogame has to create a world in which expertise takes place. Thus, it comes as no surprise that many great videogames were headed by people with the understanding of a SOCIAL DYNAMIC. A perfect example is Shinji Mikami and his Resident Evil creation. He was heavily influenced by cult horror films and understood how to time and pace horror scenes much like a movie director. Alone in the Dark came out as the first horror game of the survival nature but it lacked that understanding. Another example, Hideo Kojima studied to be a film director initially. Many of his videogames deal with philosophical and social issues weaved into an intricate story. I have an inclination that Solid Snake is really based on Ernesto Che Guevara the famous revolutionary and not David Hayter best known for playing the Guyver before voicing Snake (joke). It would come as no surprise that movie directors and screenwriters will become an integral part of the development process in the near future. It already can be seen in games like John Woo Presents Stranglehold.
The reality is game designers cannot be the old lone programmer working in his free time. Neither can he be a programmer or graphics designer promoted from within the company. Game designers have to specialize to meet the growing complexity of videogame development. The problem is there is no definite route for aspiring game designers despite the obvious consequences of neglecting game designers while going corporate i.e. producing videogames that are exact clones of others that no one will want to buy or play. Being test boys doesn’t cut it. Game designers cannot program a code or produce a drawing or perhaps even budget the finances. Game designers do not have a technical skill that can be used mechanically eight hours a day. All they have are visions and a pen. Game designers seem unnecessary. Creativity is seen as an asset but not a skill. It’s the “fun part” for the development team and not considered work. Furthermore, companies do not understand social dynamics involved in videogames despite the most successful game designers proving it beyond a doubt. The result is up and coming game designers are not given the opportunity to create the next generation of videogames. Videogames become cliché and boring. It becomes a generic medium and loses those qualities that made us all love videogames in the first place.
Here is my proposal of a standard for aspiring game designers. This is their academic program for a skill like learning C++ for the programmer and Maya for the graphics artist; study liberal arts. Great game designers should come from philosophical, psychological, historical and english educational backgrounds. It is these that have the best understanding of social dynamic. It is actually men in these fields that have shaped the world in which we live. There is no better option than to go to them for creating a virtual world.
Why Girls Don't Play Videogames
I can honestly say that this has been one of the enigmas of the gaming industry. Perhaps it didn’t matter as much then when the gaming industry was relatively small and directed towards a specific market base. However, the cost of developing a videogame today has gone up almost dramatically and it is only logical to adopt many of the economic principles. The gaming industry is only tapping into half of its potential because girls don’t play videogames. Everyone can see this and there have been many attempts to assimilate girls and gaming.
Some videogames are ridiculously crude in their attempts to assimilate. Girls like ponies so make a videogame about horses. Girls like puppies so simulate a dog care videogame. Girls like to shop so make a videogame about clothes. Girls like pink so color all videogames pink. These videogames attempted to cater to a specific audience, girls, and pushed out the boys. It didn’t take long to realize that in attempting to assimilate girls these videogames alienated boys and should the videogame crash, like they all do, it turned into a complete failure for no one else would ever consider playing them.
Some companies are getting wise to the fact and hire females to help develop videogames that may appeal more to girls instead of going with clichés. It’s a logical way to approach the situation and it has bear some fruit. However, there hasn’t been a videogame that has united the sexes on a groundbreaking level. The problem is very clear but lost amongst the shroud of conformity and genres that prevail in today’s videogame design. Please let us, the new generation, design videogames!
It is common knowledge that girls do play videogames but what are they? Girls tend to play more casual games like Tetris, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Brain Academy, Dance Dance Revolution, and Guitar Hero. The common link between these can be defined as CASUAL videogames. This doesn’t mean girls only enjoy casual videogames. Boys play the same videogames. I am positive that Harmonix Music Systems didn’t have girls in mind when they developed Guitar Hero. The real reason girls are more likely to play these casual videogames is overlooked. It’s real simple actually. Casual videogames are GENDER NEUTRAL. An example is dolls are for girls, trucks are for boys, but balls are for everyone. Casual videogames can be enjoyed by both sexes and perhaps even aliens. These videogames tap into a part of the brain that isn’t stimulated by others such as Grand Theft Auto or Nintendogs. I do not know which neurotransmitters are activated and relayed but I can feel different parts of the brain being stimulated when playing Dance Dance Revolution compared to something like SOCOM. Science cannot read the language of the brain either by the way. Perhaps one day but not today.
What videogames do appeal to girls? Any socialite can tell you the difference between men and women. It’s not men are from Mars and women are from Venus by the way. I am certain it has to do with hormone levels and science agrees, but again science cannot read the language of brain. For now everyone just takes Prozac and men can take Viagra. What is undeniable is that men and women process thought differently though. Here’s the trick: perhaps game designers need not know the human mind like a neurologist; don’t need to understand it from the inside out, just work from the outside in. Here’s a sexist statement that holds true more often than not: men are logical and women are emotional. Men make better providers and women better caretakers. It’s no secret that women are better at understanding emotions and men are better at sports. The secret is evolution. Cavemen must learn to find practical means to survive and hunt while cavewomen must learn how to effectively care for the family and manage the group. Here’s an example perhaps more modern. Women are more apprehensive about approaching attractive guys. Men are more willing to approach a hot babe. Why, because women are more likely to be in physical danger than men and must analyze the situation on more than just a logical level. Is he friendly? Is he not creepy? Is he social? The list goes on. Men just read hot or not. It’s usually men who are responsible for crimes such as rape and murder. Just watch CNN. You won’t find many cases in which the roles are reversed. The point is this, for videogames to be able to connect to girls beyond a casual level they must be more subjective than objective.
The major flaw with this disconnect to girls is rooted in the level by level and mission by mission layout of videogames. It’s easier to manage and at the same time it serves as a great structure. Examples are videogames like SOCOM in which a player has a specific agenda he has to accomplish such as a rendezvous or skirmish. These are objective. The problem arises when the agenda behind the videogame is to accomplish a goal and fight the big boss. This separates the player from the moment because he’s looking and planning ahead. Contrary to SOCOM is Monster Rancher. It has players inserting different CDs to generate unique monsters which than are raised by the players and develop distinct characteristics whether they are personalities, abilities, or stats. These are subjective. The players aren’t focused on the steps to get ahead but on what led up to now. It’s not forward logic, its backward logic, which is more meaningful to the heart because it’s much more painful to lose something than joyful to gain another.
Ever wonder why women like love stories? Men do too, but certainly not to that extent. The answer is because love stories connect to our emotions and as the love stories change and grow our emotions follow suit every step of the way. It’s like a rollercoaster ride. We feel the pain and joy, sadness and happiness. What makes love stories even more emotional? Read a Jane Austen book. Read Cosmopolitan and go “emo”. Read my words. Emotions are strongest when they are constantly being evoked. How are they constantly being evoked? There is a barrier that you’re constantly trying to peg down and or up. Isn’t the chase the most fun part of romance?
Here’s my proposal.
Game designers have done to death solving puzzles, riding fast cars, beating people up, using guns --- tsk tsk (shakes head) at Halo 3. Now everyone will blame videogames for shooting sprees not that Grand Theft Auto hasn’t done it already. Isn’t it about time we lay down our arms? Let’s do a videogame about the most universal truth: men and women belong together; a love story.
Some videogames are ridiculously crude in their attempts to assimilate. Girls like ponies so make a videogame about horses. Girls like puppies so simulate a dog care videogame. Girls like to shop so make a videogame about clothes. Girls like pink so color all videogames pink. These videogames attempted to cater to a specific audience, girls, and pushed out the boys. It didn’t take long to realize that in attempting to assimilate girls these videogames alienated boys and should the videogame crash, like they all do, it turned into a complete failure for no one else would ever consider playing them.
Some companies are getting wise to the fact and hire females to help develop videogames that may appeal more to girls instead of going with clichés. It’s a logical way to approach the situation and it has bear some fruit. However, there hasn’t been a videogame that has united the sexes on a groundbreaking level. The problem is very clear but lost amongst the shroud of conformity and genres that prevail in today’s videogame design. Please let us, the new generation, design videogames!
It is common knowledge that girls do play videogames but what are they? Girls tend to play more casual games like Tetris, Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Brain Academy, Dance Dance Revolution, and Guitar Hero. The common link between these can be defined as CASUAL videogames. This doesn’t mean girls only enjoy casual videogames. Boys play the same videogames. I am positive that Harmonix Music Systems didn’t have girls in mind when they developed Guitar Hero. The real reason girls are more likely to play these casual videogames is overlooked. It’s real simple actually. Casual videogames are GENDER NEUTRAL. An example is dolls are for girls, trucks are for boys, but balls are for everyone. Casual videogames can be enjoyed by both sexes and perhaps even aliens. These videogames tap into a part of the brain that isn’t stimulated by others such as Grand Theft Auto or Nintendogs. I do not know which neurotransmitters are activated and relayed but I can feel different parts of the brain being stimulated when playing Dance Dance Revolution compared to something like SOCOM. Science cannot read the language of the brain either by the way. Perhaps one day but not today.
What videogames do appeal to girls? Any socialite can tell you the difference between men and women. It’s not men are from Mars and women are from Venus by the way. I am certain it has to do with hormone levels and science agrees, but again science cannot read the language of brain. For now everyone just takes Prozac and men can take Viagra. What is undeniable is that men and women process thought differently though. Here’s the trick: perhaps game designers need not know the human mind like a neurologist; don’t need to understand it from the inside out, just work from the outside in. Here’s a sexist statement that holds true more often than not: men are logical and women are emotional. Men make better providers and women better caretakers. It’s no secret that women are better at understanding emotions and men are better at sports. The secret is evolution. Cavemen must learn to find practical means to survive and hunt while cavewomen must learn how to effectively care for the family and manage the group. Here’s an example perhaps more modern. Women are more apprehensive about approaching attractive guys. Men are more willing to approach a hot babe. Why, because women are more likely to be in physical danger than men and must analyze the situation on more than just a logical level. Is he friendly? Is he not creepy? Is he social? The list goes on. Men just read hot or not. It’s usually men who are responsible for crimes such as rape and murder. Just watch CNN. You won’t find many cases in which the roles are reversed. The point is this, for videogames to be able to connect to girls beyond a casual level they must be more subjective than objective.
The major flaw with this disconnect to girls is rooted in the level by level and mission by mission layout of videogames. It’s easier to manage and at the same time it serves as a great structure. Examples are videogames like SOCOM in which a player has a specific agenda he has to accomplish such as a rendezvous or skirmish. These are objective. The problem arises when the agenda behind the videogame is to accomplish a goal and fight the big boss. This separates the player from the moment because he’s looking and planning ahead. Contrary to SOCOM is Monster Rancher. It has players inserting different CDs to generate unique monsters which than are raised by the players and develop distinct characteristics whether they are personalities, abilities, or stats. These are subjective. The players aren’t focused on the steps to get ahead but on what led up to now. It’s not forward logic, its backward logic, which is more meaningful to the heart because it’s much more painful to lose something than joyful to gain another.
Ever wonder why women like love stories? Men do too, but certainly not to that extent. The answer is because love stories connect to our emotions and as the love stories change and grow our emotions follow suit every step of the way. It’s like a rollercoaster ride. We feel the pain and joy, sadness and happiness. What makes love stories even more emotional? Read a Jane Austen book. Read Cosmopolitan and go “emo”. Read my words. Emotions are strongest when they are constantly being evoked. How are they constantly being evoked? There is a barrier that you’re constantly trying to peg down and or up. Isn’t the chase the most fun part of romance?
Here’s my proposal.
Game designers have done to death solving puzzles, riding fast cars, beating people up, using guns --- tsk tsk (shakes head) at Halo 3. Now everyone will blame videogames for shooting sprees not that Grand Theft Auto hasn’t done it already. Isn’t it about time we lay down our arms? Let’s do a videogame about the most universal truth: men and women belong together; a love story.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Flowchart Fiasco
I remember when Resident Evil first came out. I thought it was going to be a great game; a real action, monster, zombie fest. You’re running low on ammunition, you’re running out of places to run and hide, you’re stuck in a horrible nightmare you cannot escape from. It was all a great idea from the get goes…until I discover that it wasn’t horror that was the backbone of the gameplay. It was really a puzzle game. Most of the time spent in the videogame wasn’t going from one place to the next thinking of ways to survive and finding a means to do it. It was running up the stairs to get the lighter, running down the stairs to light up the candle, allowing you to see the painting in the room which had a clue, running around to the opposite end of the mansion with the hint from the painting to unlock a safe. Inside the safe is a key that has an impression on it, signifying a certain door you have to find and go through. Once inside the door you realize that you need to run back upstairs to return the lighter to its original location to unleash a latch in the previous room. Running back downstairs and into the room you’ll discover that there’s an oddly shaped diamond glistening on the ground. Take the diamond back into the room with the candle and place it on a special platform next to the painting, a click sound goes off outside. You run out to find an ugly deformed three headed dog waiting to pounce and tear you to shreds. Killing it ends scenario one. This is an exaggerated example of how flowcharts seem to work nowadays with many games. It drove me nuts then and it drives me nuts now. Puzzles are only entertaining if players enjoy puzzles. It should be a genre, not a gameplay element incorporated into every single videogame.
I can see why videogame has evolved with these ridiculous flowcharts. In part it has to do with videogame design from the archaic age i.e. Atari and before. These videogames were very limited in their scope. They had to present “little obstacles” for a player like asteroids crashing into a plane or bugs falling down the screen. There wasn’t even an ultimate agenda in mind. It was simply playing to get the highest score possible and initialing it. As videogame evolved and eventually reached its 2d heights in the form of the 16 bit consoles such as Super Nintendo, it outgrew high scores. There were definitively better ways of making a videogame. Objects and characters can roam around freely although it wasn’t truly three dimensional. However, the notion of “little obstacles” didn’t go away with the development of better technology. If anything, it only heightened it. Videogames like Sonic the Hedgehog weaved the concept of “little obstacles” quite well with the available technology. Sonic collected rings and jumped over pitfalls and spikes, spinning into a bowling ball to knock creatures out. Its best feature was doing all of this in an up-tempo fashion, having Sonic running up walls and in loops as he bounces of springs. I can say that the perfect execution of “little obstacles” with the updated technology turned Sega into a household name.
By the 3d era of polygons and Playstation “little obstacles” have been fully incorporated into how a videogame works. “Little obstacles” served as the core gameplay element. However, “little obstacles” were no longer spikes or pitfalls and objects flying randomly about. “Little obstacles” have evolved with the technology. It had reached that ridiculous state I mentioned about running in a mansion solving puzzles in a horror game, requiring the pulling of some lever to open a gateway, the use of a special key to open a door, the finding of some item to advance to the next phase of the game, etc. Videogames used to be about a starting point, “little obstacles”, and an ending point. Nowadays it’s about a starting point, flowchart, ending point. “Little obstacles” have evolved into our modern notion of flowchart but retained most of its characteristics. The truth is videogames nowadays are far more complex with their storylines and virtual economies that “little obstacles” just cannot keep up. Why try to find a special key to unlock a wooden door in Resident Evil when you have a rocket launcher that can blow it down easily? Why run around trying to open a safe when you can just blow it up with a grenade? How on earth does putting a diamond in the eye of a tiger statue open a door? It has become both impractical and illogical. Just as 2d outgrew high score 3d needs to outgrow “little obstacles.”
Game designers really have two choices when it comes to flowcharts. Create a long straight story that a player cannot branch away from or create short multiple paths for a player to follow with multiple endings. Way of the Samurai 2 is a perfect example of multiple paths to choose from. On the one hand short multiply paths create a lot of replay value because players naturally want to see where the other paths may have led to, but on the other hand a long straight story can be quite meaningful and engaging because it has more depth. This is a dilemma I like to call playing with destiny and free will. In life we often chose our own paths without knowing where it ends. Many people have said it is not so much attaining the goal that matters as it is how we get there. Many have also said that all paths in life lead to the same end; death. We all die someday, but how we live is what makes it worthwhile. The same holds true for any videogame. It is not so much creating a flowchart that a player must follow to get to the next stage. It’s allowing the player the freedom to do what he wants as long as he gets there. Game designers need not guide players with the hand of god in every direction. They do not need to create the paths to take. Game designers merely need to create the end that all paths lead to. Let players have the free will to do what they want within the game designers’ worlds. Videogames are meant for a player to find his way through and not be guided hand and feet. For example, what made Grand Theft Auto such a hit wasn’t just the fact that it had a free roaming world where a player can go anywhere. There was a noticeable lack of direction in the game. A player can do whatever he wanted from prostitution to robbery to sniping random people to car chases. Another videogame that allowed for freewill in a flowchart was the lesser known Indigo Prophecy. It was unique in that the flowchart included time constraints and changed small outcomes of each scenario. How? By choosing different options within a limited time the player received different information and interactions, revealing one side of the story while holding on to the other. It kept the player actively involved and at the same time it forced the player to help develop the outcome of the videogame. This solves many people’s complaint that in videogames especially RPGs that no matter what the response are to something the results are always the same. Although not based completely on freewill this type of flowchart creates many paths that lead to the same road. It is a method in which life itself operates by.
I can see why videogame has evolved with these ridiculous flowcharts. In part it has to do with videogame design from the archaic age i.e. Atari and before. These videogames were very limited in their scope. They had to present “little obstacles” for a player like asteroids crashing into a plane or bugs falling down the screen. There wasn’t even an ultimate agenda in mind. It was simply playing to get the highest score possible and initialing it. As videogame evolved and eventually reached its 2d heights in the form of the 16 bit consoles such as Super Nintendo, it outgrew high scores. There were definitively better ways of making a videogame. Objects and characters can roam around freely although it wasn’t truly three dimensional. However, the notion of “little obstacles” didn’t go away with the development of better technology. If anything, it only heightened it. Videogames like Sonic the Hedgehog weaved the concept of “little obstacles” quite well with the available technology. Sonic collected rings and jumped over pitfalls and spikes, spinning into a bowling ball to knock creatures out. Its best feature was doing all of this in an up-tempo fashion, having Sonic running up walls and in loops as he bounces of springs. I can say that the perfect execution of “little obstacles” with the updated technology turned Sega into a household name.
By the 3d era of polygons and Playstation “little obstacles” have been fully incorporated into how a videogame works. “Little obstacles” served as the core gameplay element. However, “little obstacles” were no longer spikes or pitfalls and objects flying randomly about. “Little obstacles” have evolved with the technology. It had reached that ridiculous state I mentioned about running in a mansion solving puzzles in a horror game, requiring the pulling of some lever to open a gateway, the use of a special key to open a door, the finding of some item to advance to the next phase of the game, etc. Videogames used to be about a starting point, “little obstacles”, and an ending point. Nowadays it’s about a starting point, flowchart, ending point. “Little obstacles” have evolved into our modern notion of flowchart but retained most of its characteristics. The truth is videogames nowadays are far more complex with their storylines and virtual economies that “little obstacles” just cannot keep up. Why try to find a special key to unlock a wooden door in Resident Evil when you have a rocket launcher that can blow it down easily? Why run around trying to open a safe when you can just blow it up with a grenade? How on earth does putting a diamond in the eye of a tiger statue open a door? It has become both impractical and illogical. Just as 2d outgrew high score 3d needs to outgrow “little obstacles.”
Game designers really have two choices when it comes to flowcharts. Create a long straight story that a player cannot branch away from or create short multiple paths for a player to follow with multiple endings. Way of the Samurai 2 is a perfect example of multiple paths to choose from. On the one hand short multiply paths create a lot of replay value because players naturally want to see where the other paths may have led to, but on the other hand a long straight story can be quite meaningful and engaging because it has more depth. This is a dilemma I like to call playing with destiny and free will. In life we often chose our own paths without knowing where it ends. Many people have said it is not so much attaining the goal that matters as it is how we get there. Many have also said that all paths in life lead to the same end; death. We all die someday, but how we live is what makes it worthwhile. The same holds true for any videogame. It is not so much creating a flowchart that a player must follow to get to the next stage. It’s allowing the player the freedom to do what he wants as long as he gets there. Game designers need not guide players with the hand of god in every direction. They do not need to create the paths to take. Game designers merely need to create the end that all paths lead to. Let players have the free will to do what they want within the game designers’ worlds. Videogames are meant for a player to find his way through and not be guided hand and feet. For example, what made Grand Theft Auto such a hit wasn’t just the fact that it had a free roaming world where a player can go anywhere. There was a noticeable lack of direction in the game. A player can do whatever he wanted from prostitution to robbery to sniping random people to car chases. Another videogame that allowed for freewill in a flowchart was the lesser known Indigo Prophecy. It was unique in that the flowchart included time constraints and changed small outcomes of each scenario. How? By choosing different options within a limited time the player received different information and interactions, revealing one side of the story while holding on to the other. It kept the player actively involved and at the same time it forced the player to help develop the outcome of the videogame. This solves many people’s complaint that in videogames especially RPGs that no matter what the response are to something the results are always the same. Although not based completely on freewill this type of flowchart creates many paths that lead to the same road. It is a method in which life itself operates by.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
The Lost Art of Creating Videogame Control Schemes
I still laugh when recalling nostalgic memories I have as a kid with a group of friends and family sitting around playing Mario Bros on the Nintendo. It was easy to differentiate between the experienced players and the amateurs. Everyone always had a bout of laughter when the controller pad was handed to a newcomer. Mario is a platform game involving timing and jumping with button mashing. All the veterans have a cool and calm demeanor, focused on the task at hand, their eyes intent and dilated as if in a trance. Newcomers were shaky, uncomfortable, twitching on each jump. The funniest moments always entailed someone miscalculating a jump and disappearing off the bottom of the screen.
Thinking back and analyzing the mechanics you can start to realize why it was such a phenomenon then. Mario Bros helped establish Nintendo as a pivotal entertainment source for kids throughout the country. It made a Nintendo Entertainment Console synonymous with a bike. Every kid had one. Mario Bros engaged the players beyond the casual game. Yet, it was not in-depth to the point where learning how to play the game itself is quite an accomplishment. Internally it tapped into a region of the brain that wasn’t quite logic but wasn’t emotions either; the subconscious. Externally what made Mario Bros successful were the controls. It helped combine the physical world with the mental world without really forcing the player to consciously link the two.
The Nintendo has but two simple buttons: A and B. One made Mario run faster, the other jump. What separated the veterans was really the understanding of the running speed and the timing of the jump combined with “becoming one” with the controls. It was physics but at the same time it was instinctive. The veterans did not think about jumping, they look ahead at the next platform and obstacle. Their minds always subconsciously jump, triggering their fingers to press the button, causing Mario to jump at just the right time and right speed at the right spot. As kids playing for hours on end many of us can turn the television off and by memorization and “feel” run and jump through a stage with no problems. It actually became a fun challenge to play a stage blindfolded. Many of these same instinctive characteristics can be seen in the newcomers, only without the finesse. As mentioned, what made the newcomers so funny to watch was exactly this same instinct that made the veterans. A newcomer usually was not using the running button consistently and the timing for the jump was horrible. It is a matter of synchronizing with the controls. Yet it was very obvious from the start that it’s not only a learned skill but a natural one; it was not so much learning as it was adapting. Every time a newcomer would jump over a platform his whole body and head would move as though to lift and pull Mario through the platform or obstacle. Often the newcomer ends up throwing his hands in the air, imitating each jump in the game. Newcomers always froze into a gross, exaggerated posture when they see Mario fall off the screen. It was these natural body movements triggered in the subconscious that made all of us laugh with joy.
It is precisely this link between the unconscious mind and the controls that I wish to point out because it is becoming increasingly harder to create that bond with the growing complexity of videogames and control schemes. Many games nowadays will use the top buttons e.g. L1, L2, R1, R2 for the Playstation. These often are used for switching modes from standing, sitting, to crawling for characters. Other use the top buttons for shuffling through an inventory list without the need to go into the menu. Most shooters videogame use these top buttons for reloading ammo. Although it is practical to use these top buttons for these purposes at the same time it detracts from the “feel” of the videogame. How so? Almost all videogame will pause when using these top buttons. It forces the mind to create a tangent thinking process alongside the actually gameplay. It’s like pausing a movie during a dramatic scene and going into the kitchen for more popcorn. It ruins the mood.
A simple solution to switching modes between standing, sitting, and crawling can be done by holding down and up for the desire position. It emulates what naturally goes on in the mind. Going from a standing position to a crawl usually takes an effort and time to get down.
Instead of shuffling through an inventory list with the top buttons, assign item usage to certain buttons. Think of it like pockets. A person instinctively knows which pocket has his wallet and which has his keys. Not all items will be needed on a regular basis just like the items in a bag pack. A person usually reserves a spot in the bag pack for convenient access to the items more used. Likewise, often used items should be assigned to the top buttons to create the convenient and instinctive feeling.
For shooters videogame the controls should emulate how a real gun work. The index finger is always the trigger finger. Therefore, the top buttons should actually be the triggers since they utilize the index fingers. Reloading involves ejecting a cartridge and inserting another. Instead of tapping the top buttons or so, reloading should be done by pulling back the analog stick and quick snapping it back up, emulating the real reload of a rifle. Gears of War has developed one of the better reload ideas, giving benefits and penalties for correct timing of reload.
In the end what ultimately makes good controls is not the practicality of a control scheme but its ability to connect the subconscious of the player’s mind to the controller pad and relay that into the videogame. I still remember the classic directional combination for the Shoryuken move in Street Fighter II. It’s ingrained into my mind and whenever an opponent jump kicks I instinctively do the Shoryuken as an uppercut counter. The directional combination imitates how a real uppercut might be done. Perhaps the best example to come along in a long time is the boxing videogame Fight Night. Instead of using buttons it utilized the two analog stick for moving around the ring and throwing punches. Anything from a quick left jab to a right hook becomes part of the motion a player must perform on the analog; a quick straight snap for a jab, a slow swirl around the edges for a hook. It creates a sensation as though the analog stick and the boxer’s arm are one and the same. In a way the player, the controller pad, and the boxer has become one. This is as close as controls can get in creating interactions to emulate a virtual reality. Looking at this it’s not surprising to see why the Nintendo Wii has been winning over people who have never played a videogame in their life. The innovative Wii controller pad allows for interactivity on a more personal level than any other console and its controller pad.
Thinking back and analyzing the mechanics you can start to realize why it was such a phenomenon then. Mario Bros helped establish Nintendo as a pivotal entertainment source for kids throughout the country. It made a Nintendo Entertainment Console synonymous with a bike. Every kid had one. Mario Bros engaged the players beyond the casual game. Yet, it was not in-depth to the point where learning how to play the game itself is quite an accomplishment. Internally it tapped into a region of the brain that wasn’t quite logic but wasn’t emotions either; the subconscious. Externally what made Mario Bros successful were the controls. It helped combine the physical world with the mental world without really forcing the player to consciously link the two.
The Nintendo has but two simple buttons: A and B. One made Mario run faster, the other jump. What separated the veterans was really the understanding of the running speed and the timing of the jump combined with “becoming one” with the controls. It was physics but at the same time it was instinctive. The veterans did not think about jumping, they look ahead at the next platform and obstacle. Their minds always subconsciously jump, triggering their fingers to press the button, causing Mario to jump at just the right time and right speed at the right spot. As kids playing for hours on end many of us can turn the television off and by memorization and “feel” run and jump through a stage with no problems. It actually became a fun challenge to play a stage blindfolded. Many of these same instinctive characteristics can be seen in the newcomers, only without the finesse. As mentioned, what made the newcomers so funny to watch was exactly this same instinct that made the veterans. A newcomer usually was not using the running button consistently and the timing for the jump was horrible. It is a matter of synchronizing with the controls. Yet it was very obvious from the start that it’s not only a learned skill but a natural one; it was not so much learning as it was adapting. Every time a newcomer would jump over a platform his whole body and head would move as though to lift and pull Mario through the platform or obstacle. Often the newcomer ends up throwing his hands in the air, imitating each jump in the game. Newcomers always froze into a gross, exaggerated posture when they see Mario fall off the screen. It was these natural body movements triggered in the subconscious that made all of us laugh with joy.
It is precisely this link between the unconscious mind and the controls that I wish to point out because it is becoming increasingly harder to create that bond with the growing complexity of videogames and control schemes. Many games nowadays will use the top buttons e.g. L1, L2, R1, R2 for the Playstation. These often are used for switching modes from standing, sitting, to crawling for characters. Other use the top buttons for shuffling through an inventory list without the need to go into the menu. Most shooters videogame use these top buttons for reloading ammo. Although it is practical to use these top buttons for these purposes at the same time it detracts from the “feel” of the videogame. How so? Almost all videogame will pause when using these top buttons. It forces the mind to create a tangent thinking process alongside the actually gameplay. It’s like pausing a movie during a dramatic scene and going into the kitchen for more popcorn. It ruins the mood.
A simple solution to switching modes between standing, sitting, and crawling can be done by holding down and up for the desire position. It emulates what naturally goes on in the mind. Going from a standing position to a crawl usually takes an effort and time to get down.
Instead of shuffling through an inventory list with the top buttons, assign item usage to certain buttons. Think of it like pockets. A person instinctively knows which pocket has his wallet and which has his keys. Not all items will be needed on a regular basis just like the items in a bag pack. A person usually reserves a spot in the bag pack for convenient access to the items more used. Likewise, often used items should be assigned to the top buttons to create the convenient and instinctive feeling.
For shooters videogame the controls should emulate how a real gun work. The index finger is always the trigger finger. Therefore, the top buttons should actually be the triggers since they utilize the index fingers. Reloading involves ejecting a cartridge and inserting another. Instead of tapping the top buttons or so, reloading should be done by pulling back the analog stick and quick snapping it back up, emulating the real reload of a rifle. Gears of War has developed one of the better reload ideas, giving benefits and penalties for correct timing of reload.
In the end what ultimately makes good controls is not the practicality of a control scheme but its ability to connect the subconscious of the player’s mind to the controller pad and relay that into the videogame. I still remember the classic directional combination for the Shoryuken move in Street Fighter II. It’s ingrained into my mind and whenever an opponent jump kicks I instinctively do the Shoryuken as an uppercut counter. The directional combination imitates how a real uppercut might be done. Perhaps the best example to come along in a long time is the boxing videogame Fight Night. Instead of using buttons it utilized the two analog stick for moving around the ring and throwing punches. Anything from a quick left jab to a right hook becomes part of the motion a player must perform on the analog; a quick straight snap for a jab, a slow swirl around the edges for a hook. It creates a sensation as though the analog stick and the boxer’s arm are one and the same. In a way the player, the controller pad, and the boxer has become one. This is as close as controls can get in creating interactions to emulate a virtual reality. Looking at this it’s not surprising to see why the Nintendo Wii has been winning over people who have never played a videogame in their life. The innovative Wii controller pad allows for interactivity on a more personal level than any other console and its controller pad.
Understanding Shadow of the Colossus
It’s rare that a game can focus specifically on just one thing and be successful at it. If anyone had come up with the idea of roaming an empty plain and battling just fifth teen creatures no one would believe in its appeal. Thankful someone was brazen enough to do just that. Although I had played Shadow of the Colossus a year ago it still has left a big impression on me. At the time it seemed revolutionary, changing the way everyone saw big creature battles forever. It certainly influenced games like God of War 2. I am hoping that other companies will take note of how the game was done. There’s more to it than just having a giant thing for a player to climb and stab at. I believe developers have not really grasped what was really going on.
There is a very noticeable cinematic technique employed in the game for those of us who watch movies. Shadow of the Colossus used an old camera trick that worked quite well in the Lord of the Rings series by Peter Jackson. Notice that the three hobbits appeared quite small in comparison to the rest and very conspicuously to the wizard Gandalf. Pausing and rewinding the DVD will show that all shots of Gandalf are taken from below. The panel is looking upwards. All shots of the hobbits are looking down. Some may notice that already and may even know the implication. Clearly Gandalf was a big man and the hobbits small. However, the missing link that separates seeing from knowing is the principle.
Camera angles create points of view. There are three points of view: first, second, and third person. Combining all three creates an illusion that can make a small man big and vice versa. It can go as far as creating other attributes such as courage which is often personified in body language. Of course, it’s not as simple as switching between the different points of view. A good movie director always knows when to switch between each view. First, the scene has to be set so the audience has an idea of what and where. Usually these are panned out shots of the location. Many are bird’s eye view shots. Second, the camera focuses in on what is going on in closer detail. A conversation of some sort or some kind of interaction is going on at this point. The audience is in a third person view, casually observing what is going on. Then as the interaction reaches an emotional or intense state the shots quickly changes to first person. This allows the audience to connect on a personal level and not just as mere observer for a moment. Many movies will have shots showing each person’s facial expression while he/she is speaking, rotating first person shots as the conversation goes from one to the other. This personalizes and connects the audience with the situation.
It is easy enough to know the principle of how points of view work. It is another thing to understand why. It comes down to knowing how the human psyche works. If a person is blindfolded, taken to another location and dumped he will have a reaction that is natural no matter the social or individual characteristics he may possess. Without a doubt his first thought would be “where am I?” People are by nature hardwired to seek and understand his surroundings and he goes about it in defined steps. How all this relates to Shadow of the Colossus is quite simple. There are very subtle details that create the illusion of colossus and man. The emulation of the idea without an understanding of its psyche is just a bad imitation.
As Wanderer, the protagonist, wanders throughout the desolate plains on his horse the camera will zoom in closer on him and his horse to give a perspective on his size for the audience. As he reaches a colossus the camera will slowly zoom out to maintain perspective on the colossus. It creates the ratio of size difference. This is the most important secret of the videogame. There are other subtle details that helps build this motif. Dust will foam out of the woods much higher than Wanderer. Trees will crumble and fall to the side. As the colossus comes slowly (because he’s big and slow) the audience can see how small Wanderer is and how big the colossus is by observing its outsole. Nothing says small like seeing the bottom of someone’s feet. Wanderer will climb up the colossus much like an ant on our bodies and he’ll swing side to side just as we try to shake ants off our own bodies.
Fumita Ueda the lead designer had a hard time working with the development team because he perhaps did not organize the motif of the game. He obviously knew what he saw in his mind but could not convey it. This is a field more akin to psychology than videogame. It’s not a surprise to see why he dropped the idea of battling underling creatures and skipping right to boss battles; unheard of in videogame thus far. Small underlings took away from the perspective and would have distracted the developers from holding on to this motif of colossusism. He should have taken the whole team rock climbing. As a child I often went to Yosemite National Park with giant cliffs, waterfalls, and redwood trees. The trees were big enough to be hollowed and serve as a tunnel. Waterfalls seem to be coming down from heaven. Cliffs disappear into the earth. Truly, nothing teaches a person perspective as well as experience.
Herein lays the method for the entire videogame. Using points of view aptly creates the perspective of the game. God of War 2 tried to copy the giant colossus idea but failed because the designers did not realize the cinematic connection between audience and videogame. It is mostly due to the fact that the engine for God of War 2 does not allow for shifting camera angles, which makes the colossal battle out of place personally. A good game designer should be aware of the available technology and how the dynamic works with creativity. However, this is asking a person to analyze himself; a feat I fear too great for anyone.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Analyzing RPG as a genre
There was a time when any game produced will generate in the very least moderate success if it was an RPG. Those were the heydays of Squaresoft’s Final Fantasy VII and its cultural impact on the gaming industry in 1997. It brought to the forefront a cult genre that was largely ignored when videogames were 2D. Of course, there were always those hardcore underground gamers who played RPGs exclusively and religiously before the implementation of 3D in RPGs and before Sony made FF7 one of its front lineups. However, today RPGs have become a generic genre with no cults and a following. It has officially been corporatized and mass produced. RPGs are a dime a dozen and a dying or at least boring breed.
Nowadays every videogame fits into a nice and neat conventional formula. This is the backbone of the game design and what characterize it and places it into a specific genre. RPGs are about a courageous boy from a small village seeking revenge against some evil and sometimes satanical villain bent on destroying the world almost for the sake of destruction. He has the help of his often times big and strong friend alongside with the girl of his affection; a girl whose weak but has magical healing powers. They run about a large map encountering hundreds and even thousands of “random battles” which all takes place through a command menu. They build up levels and finally develop enough skills and have enough life points to challenge the villain. They always win in the end and save the world from destruction. It doesn’t matter what RPG a person can play, it always has the same formula. No wonder some people are aghast at anyone willing to spend forty-eight hours up of his/her life wasting away. It is hardly enjoyable and is very time consuming.
Through the corporatization of RPG many of its most fundamental principles have been lost in the attempt to define and mass produce. Ask all RPG fans why they play and the overwhelming answer is story. Game designers need to ask themselves why are there level ups, random battles, an inventory full of items, and multiple characters. A more correct definition of RPG is epic story. All those aspects of an RPG were supposed to build up the grandeur of so great an odyssey: the STORY.
Level ups in RPGs today are used as a means of creating gameplay hours in lieu of a story. Many RPGs require a person to go about seeking random battles to build up enough stats to handle the next tier of opponents. Level ups also is used widely as a means of obtaining certain skills required to progress through the game. Game designers forget that level ups were a way of showing growth, development and experience. It was a way of showing how a person grew throughout his/her odyssey. There are better ways to do that than through stats and the necessity to roam around aimlessly looking for a random battle to build it up. A very easy method to remedy this would be to build upon the story with references, creating knowledge of the characters’ backgrounds, using cause and effect events only understood as the game progresses. This way a person playing the game will have a sense of involvement and contribution to the story, helping it grow eventually to epic proportions. Do away with level ups.
Random battles represent the scale and magnitude of fighting that needed to be done in order to achieve the goal. It supposedly shows how much toil was needed and how much experience a person had gained on the battlefield: war veterans. A player start by defeating weak opponents and gradually moved on to bigger and stronger opponents. Most of these battles occur on maps and in dungeons. These battles are often the weakest link in any RPG. It can get tedious and quickly so. It is understandable that back when RPGs were done on the Nintendo this is acceptable for there were not as many options, but given the technology of today random battles need to take a major evolutionary step. Battles of any sort can be divided into two categories: small skirmishes and pitch battles. Games like Metal Gear and recently Shadow of the Colossus are great examples of how RPGs can improve the boss battle aspects in a pitch battle. Dynasty Warriors is the zenith of how a major epic battlefield is done whether it’s in skirmishes or pitched battles. A solution that will add more meaning to the hundreds of battle is to focus less on battle and more on creating suspense on an upcoming battle. Instead of having random guys in the street picking fights, it is a gradual journey to an inevitable showdown. This type of battle is great for a meaningful pitch battle and ultimately a showdown. Skirmishes can often times be accidental and impromptu with unidentified individuals which can lead to friendly fire. These are great for sub-boss battles and battles involving anonymous soldiers. But even skirmishes have a basis behind it; it’s not a random battle. In real war people know that the enemy is near and unanticipated battle can be expected to take place, which incidentally explains the high rate of friendly fire. Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own men in the American Civil War.
Game designers seem to get lost in creating the hundreds of items to be found in a RPG. The common notion nowadays is that the more inventory the better a RPG is. There are more things to find, more things to use, more options to be had. Also common in attempts to bolster inventory lists are the upgrade items; potion, super potion, ultra potion, max potion, etc. In truth, an inventory helps to establish the epic nature of the game. It shows how much a person has gone through and how much he/she has grown. Evident are the favorites of the inventory list: the weapons. Weapons commonly start from wooden swords and would progress to flint, copper, iron, and steel eventually reaching states of unknown alloy. It supposedly shows the progress of the player but the flaw of this is it separates a person from his/her belongings. Rare items are valued and outdated items are trashed. Any game would have more meanings if personal belongings have meanings and implications behind them. For example, swords often are elaborately designed and used as marks of distinctions. All inventory items should have a history behind them not just “key” items. Even something as simple as food should be given to a character out of friendship from another. This personalizes the surroundings and creates bonds and a link between an individual and his/her environment.
Multiple characters are often used as a means of providing dimension to players. A certain character might specialize in magic, another attack, another defense, another special weapons, etc. The general purpose is to create a diverse field of character to choose from. It creates depth towards battles and sometimes sub stories. Game designers forget that multiple characters is not to provide options and mechanics for a game, it’s supposed to create camaraderie among people. In real odysseys people often come across a vast array of people and in times of war they often become a “band of brothers.” In a RPG multiple characters are supposed to represent this feeling of belonging and a shared struggle. This is a lost art in RPG and it is easily correctable by creating a history between the characters. Seeing something like a distinct mark on a tree made years ago can make a person sentimental while it means nothing to those around him/her. It is the game designer’s job to link together people as though they share a common history. This is what ultimately creates bonds.
These are some simple solutions for a dying genre in need of evolution. RPG was created in the 2D generation and never changed its formula. All genres have undergone some evolution in the 3D generation. The success of Squaresoft (now SquareEnix) helped pushed RPG into mainstream media but at the same time it helped generate a formula that is now becoming a genre. A genre can often confine and restrict because it creates laws in which game designers have to follow. Videogame was meant to be enjoyed after all. All of the solutions suggested thus far share a common root. They all stem from an attempt to tell a better story. They all attempt to connect the characters and the world around them and provide a link as through a window to whoever is playing the game. A RPG is a journey through time and space, giving us an insight into people’s struggle, hope, love, and life. If in the end a RPG does not make the player feel a character’s thoughts and emotions than it has failed.
Nowadays every videogame fits into a nice and neat conventional formula. This is the backbone of the game design and what characterize it and places it into a specific genre. RPGs are about a courageous boy from a small village seeking revenge against some evil and sometimes satanical villain bent on destroying the world almost for the sake of destruction. He has the help of his often times big and strong friend alongside with the girl of his affection; a girl whose weak but has magical healing powers. They run about a large map encountering hundreds and even thousands of “random battles” which all takes place through a command menu. They build up levels and finally develop enough skills and have enough life points to challenge the villain. They always win in the end and save the world from destruction. It doesn’t matter what RPG a person can play, it always has the same formula. No wonder some people are aghast at anyone willing to spend forty-eight hours up of his/her life wasting away. It is hardly enjoyable and is very time consuming.
Through the corporatization of RPG many of its most fundamental principles have been lost in the attempt to define and mass produce. Ask all RPG fans why they play and the overwhelming answer is story. Game designers need to ask themselves why are there level ups, random battles, an inventory full of items, and multiple characters. A more correct definition of RPG is epic story. All those aspects of an RPG were supposed to build up the grandeur of so great an odyssey: the STORY.
Level ups in RPGs today are used as a means of creating gameplay hours in lieu of a story. Many RPGs require a person to go about seeking random battles to build up enough stats to handle the next tier of opponents. Level ups also is used widely as a means of obtaining certain skills required to progress through the game. Game designers forget that level ups were a way of showing growth, development and experience. It was a way of showing how a person grew throughout his/her odyssey. There are better ways to do that than through stats and the necessity to roam around aimlessly looking for a random battle to build it up. A very easy method to remedy this would be to build upon the story with references, creating knowledge of the characters’ backgrounds, using cause and effect events only understood as the game progresses. This way a person playing the game will have a sense of involvement and contribution to the story, helping it grow eventually to epic proportions. Do away with level ups.
Random battles represent the scale and magnitude of fighting that needed to be done in order to achieve the goal. It supposedly shows how much toil was needed and how much experience a person had gained on the battlefield: war veterans. A player start by defeating weak opponents and gradually moved on to bigger and stronger opponents. Most of these battles occur on maps and in dungeons. These battles are often the weakest link in any RPG. It can get tedious and quickly so. It is understandable that back when RPGs were done on the Nintendo this is acceptable for there were not as many options, but given the technology of today random battles need to take a major evolutionary step. Battles of any sort can be divided into two categories: small skirmishes and pitch battles. Games like Metal Gear and recently Shadow of the Colossus are great examples of how RPGs can improve the boss battle aspects in a pitch battle. Dynasty Warriors is the zenith of how a major epic battlefield is done whether it’s in skirmishes or pitched battles. A solution that will add more meaning to the hundreds of battle is to focus less on battle and more on creating suspense on an upcoming battle. Instead of having random guys in the street picking fights, it is a gradual journey to an inevitable showdown. This type of battle is great for a meaningful pitch battle and ultimately a showdown. Skirmishes can often times be accidental and impromptu with unidentified individuals which can lead to friendly fire. These are great for sub-boss battles and battles involving anonymous soldiers. But even skirmishes have a basis behind it; it’s not a random battle. In real war people know that the enemy is near and unanticipated battle can be expected to take place, which incidentally explains the high rate of friendly fire. Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own men in the American Civil War.
Game designers seem to get lost in creating the hundreds of items to be found in a RPG. The common notion nowadays is that the more inventory the better a RPG is. There are more things to find, more things to use, more options to be had. Also common in attempts to bolster inventory lists are the upgrade items; potion, super potion, ultra potion, max potion, etc. In truth, an inventory helps to establish the epic nature of the game. It shows how much a person has gone through and how much he/she has grown. Evident are the favorites of the inventory list: the weapons. Weapons commonly start from wooden swords and would progress to flint, copper, iron, and steel eventually reaching states of unknown alloy. It supposedly shows the progress of the player but the flaw of this is it separates a person from his/her belongings. Rare items are valued and outdated items are trashed. Any game would have more meanings if personal belongings have meanings and implications behind them. For example, swords often are elaborately designed and used as marks of distinctions. All inventory items should have a history behind them not just “key” items. Even something as simple as food should be given to a character out of friendship from another. This personalizes the surroundings and creates bonds and a link between an individual and his/her environment.
Multiple characters are often used as a means of providing dimension to players. A certain character might specialize in magic, another attack, another defense, another special weapons, etc. The general purpose is to create a diverse field of character to choose from. It creates depth towards battles and sometimes sub stories. Game designers forget that multiple characters is not to provide options and mechanics for a game, it’s supposed to create camaraderie among people. In real odysseys people often come across a vast array of people and in times of war they often become a “band of brothers.” In a RPG multiple characters are supposed to represent this feeling of belonging and a shared struggle. This is a lost art in RPG and it is easily correctable by creating a history between the characters. Seeing something like a distinct mark on a tree made years ago can make a person sentimental while it means nothing to those around him/her. It is the game designer’s job to link together people as though they share a common history. This is what ultimately creates bonds.
These are some simple solutions for a dying genre in need of evolution. RPG was created in the 2D generation and never changed its formula. All genres have undergone some evolution in the 3D generation. The success of Squaresoft (now SquareEnix) helped pushed RPG into mainstream media but at the same time it helped generate a formula that is now becoming a genre. A genre can often confine and restrict because it creates laws in which game designers have to follow. Videogame was meant to be enjoyed after all. All of the solutions suggested thus far share a common root. They all stem from an attempt to tell a better story. They all attempt to connect the characters and the world around them and provide a link as through a window to whoever is playing the game. A RPG is a journey through time and space, giving us an insight into people’s struggle, hope, love, and life. If in the end a RPG does not make the player feel a character’s thoughts and emotions than it has failed.
Basketball Footwork Series - JAB STEP
The Jab Step is the first footwork technique to learn for everyone mainly because it works as the precursor to any other footwork technique. The reason is because the Jab Step is really about gauging the defender and deciding which of the three options to use.
The Jab Step is performed in the Triple Threat because it is a fake step to the basket. It cannot be performed in the Full Stop because there is no possibility of driving after picking up the dribble. The Jab Step essentially looks like a quick one step as if it were the beginning of driving to the basket. It is meant to see how the defender would react towards a sudden movement. This would tell how the defender is likely to behave towards one of the three options and provide the player with the best choice given the circumstance.
The Jab Step works by quickly taking a step forward as if to drive to the basket yet it is not as simple to perform. The Jab Step has to appear like it is really the first step towards a drive to the basket. At the same time it also cannot be an actual step towards the basket because the player will have developed momentum, making transition slower into one of the three options. For example, if the defender steps back due to the Jab Step an open shoot is viable but the momentum would have to be stopped and balance regained before shooting. The time taken to regain balance would have given the defender the opportunity to readjust.
The trick behind the Jab Step is body control. While taking that step forward to gauge the defender, the body weight must be maintained on the other leg. Basically, the Jab Step is quick and limp. An advantage to taking a quick limp step forward is the recovery time. It serves the same purpose as a hard step forward to gauge the defenders reaction but it does not involve momentum. A limp step allows for quickly gathering both feet for a shot because the body is still balanced. The best aspect of a limp step is it allows all the weight to be pushed off the hind leg at once, making it an explosive first step to the basket.
Next time I will discuss not just using the Jab Step correctly, but knowing the best ways to use it.
The Jab Step is performed in the Triple Threat because it is a fake step to the basket. It cannot be performed in the Full Stop because there is no possibility of driving after picking up the dribble. The Jab Step essentially looks like a quick one step as if it were the beginning of driving to the basket. It is meant to see how the defender would react towards a sudden movement. This would tell how the defender is likely to behave towards one of the three options and provide the player with the best choice given the circumstance.
The Jab Step works by quickly taking a step forward as if to drive to the basket yet it is not as simple to perform. The Jab Step has to appear like it is really the first step towards a drive to the basket. At the same time it also cannot be an actual step towards the basket because the player will have developed momentum, making transition slower into one of the three options. For example, if the defender steps back due to the Jab Step an open shoot is viable but the momentum would have to be stopped and balance regained before shooting. The time taken to regain balance would have given the defender the opportunity to readjust.
The trick behind the Jab Step is body control. While taking that step forward to gauge the defender, the body weight must be maintained on the other leg. Basically, the Jab Step is quick and limp. An advantage to taking a quick limp step forward is the recovery time. It serves the same purpose as a hard step forward to gauge the defenders reaction but it does not involve momentum. A limp step allows for quickly gathering both feet for a shot because the body is still balanced. The best aspect of a limp step is it allows all the weight to be pushed off the hind leg at once, making it an explosive first step to the basket.
Next time I will discuss not just using the Jab Step correctly, but knowing the best ways to use it.
Basketball Footwork Series - INTRODUCTION
Before I go into any further detail I would like to make apparent a few points that underlie the whole of the discussion. I feel that footwork is an aspect of basketball that many players are not being taught properly or is not emphasized enough in fundamental development. I hope to bring to light some of the footwork utilized by many NBA players and discuss in detail the mechanics of each: the what, when, where, why, and how to of each move. The goal is hopefully to raise an awareness of what footwork is and how it is used in basketball. I believe any player can benefit from learning some of the footwork techniques I will be discussing.
Through the evolution of the game many fundamental elements have come to the forefront. At the helm is the evolution of dribbling. There are famous signature moves such as the Killer Cross, Stutter Step, Double Crossover, etc. While these are an important aspect of the game it only involves half of creating offense. There are basically two parts to playing basketball when a player has the ball; playing while dribbling and while not dribbling. Footwork is best utilized when playing while not dribbling the ball. There are two instances for that opportunity: holding on to the ball when receiving a pass and coming to a full stop after picking up your dribble. Footwork is also a very necessary part of defense and playing without the ball in general. It takes footwork to be in position for rebounds and blocks for example. However for the time, I will discuss utilizing footwork on the offensive end.
The Triple Threat is the name given to receiving the ball. It is called that for the player has three options: shoot, pass, or dribble. This is the perfect time for footwork because it can transition into all three aspects whereas as the footwork after picking up the dribble only have shoot and pass available. The Triple Threat is generally the initiation of the offense and the benefit to using footwork instead of just automatically vying for one of the three options is because it can create a bigger advantage in the options that would not have been there otherwise.
Full Stop is the name given to picking up the ball after dribbling. In many cases this is a bad situation to be in because either the player has been halted by the defense or is in a bad position. As mentioned earlier, it also only has two of the three options available. Footwork in this situation can be highly effective if done right for one reason. The player with the ball has the initiative. A good player would have come to a full stop with knowledge of what to do and is fairly close to the basket after utilizing the dribble to get there. Thus, the Full Stop is generally for finishing the offense. Footwork here can set up open shoots and good passing angles.
Outlined above are the two situations in which to utilize footwork on offense. All offensive footwork for later will come essential from these two basic situations.
Through the evolution of the game many fundamental elements have come to the forefront. At the helm is the evolution of dribbling. There are famous signature moves such as the Killer Cross, Stutter Step, Double Crossover, etc. While these are an important aspect of the game it only involves half of creating offense. There are basically two parts to playing basketball when a player has the ball; playing while dribbling and while not dribbling. Footwork is best utilized when playing while not dribbling the ball. There are two instances for that opportunity: holding on to the ball when receiving a pass and coming to a full stop after picking up your dribble. Footwork is also a very necessary part of defense and playing without the ball in general. It takes footwork to be in position for rebounds and blocks for example. However for the time, I will discuss utilizing footwork on the offensive end.
The Triple Threat is the name given to receiving the ball. It is called that for the player has three options: shoot, pass, or dribble. This is the perfect time for footwork because it can transition into all three aspects whereas as the footwork after picking up the dribble only have shoot and pass available. The Triple Threat is generally the initiation of the offense and the benefit to using footwork instead of just automatically vying for one of the three options is because it can create a bigger advantage in the options that would not have been there otherwise.
Full Stop is the name given to picking up the ball after dribbling. In many cases this is a bad situation to be in because either the player has been halted by the defense or is in a bad position. As mentioned earlier, it also only has two of the three options available. Footwork in this situation can be highly effective if done right for one reason. The player with the ball has the initiative. A good player would have come to a full stop with knowledge of what to do and is fairly close to the basket after utilizing the dribble to get there. Thus, the Full Stop is generally for finishing the offense. Footwork here can set up open shoots and good passing angles.
Outlined above are the two situations in which to utilize footwork on offense. All offensive footwork for later will come essential from these two basic situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)