What Spelunky does right

You’re 2 levels down a cave that could kill you in an instant, and you see a shiny golden object in the middle of a clear area. You stop, wary: Item or Enemy? Fight or Flight?

Your game-trained cortex ticks off  “Item” and “Trap?” and selects “Pick up” from the vast table of responses you’ve honed over the years. When you drop down and grab the idol the room starts rumbling. “Trap?” and “Boss?”, “Bad” and “RUN” shouts your cortex, and you flee. The boulder that drops from the ceiling and rolls towards you with lethal force seems both surprising and inevitable. Of course a boulder was going to roll out when you grabbed the idol, you mutter to your crushed spelunker. What else could have happened?

It’s shamefully rare for games to confront you with a mystery and force you to figure out how to handle it, but Spelunky does this constantly. It teaches you the basic mechanics, then unleashes you on an environment full of things that act according to rules you haven’t been told. Everything new you meet provokes three stages, in order. The sudden stop and careful assessment: “What is this going to do? How should I approach this?” The careful poke: “Let’s see what happens if I…”  And the discovery: “Oh! Ahahaha!”

What stops it from being frustrating trial and error is that each object is carefully covered in a varnish of tropes. A woman in a red dress, yelling “Help!”; a black altar; a pistol, a compass, and a shotgun, with an old man standing behind them. Clues. These things tap into our deepest ingrained cultural brain-bits, making our cortex scream exasperated instructions over our shoulders. A damsel – maybe I should rescue her. Ah, a shop- I should buy things here. A bloodstained altar? What happens if I put the Damsel on – oh! Ahahaha!

The Binding of Isaac fails at this by making the clues too obscure, the responses too obvious. Picking up a tube of lipstick makes your range go up – but you won’t question it, because you know to just instinctively pick up any items you find. One series of items looks nearly identical, with random effects when consumed – no need to assess, just eat it and see if it the outcome was good. The assessment and careful poking is replaced with blind stabs in the dark.

Spelunky builds itself entirely on these unspoken rules, making itself into an experience of constant experimentation and discovery. Other games- Super Mario Brothers, Majora’s Mask – put their mystery mechanics into side-quests instead, leaving the main quest clear and blatant and the unspoken rules providing mystery around the edges. Both work well, but the latter is easier on newbies; The hardcore players can tangle with the mysteries of the world, while the majority just go about their business in a world full of the strange unknown.

Filling the world with things the player doesn’t understand makes the game seem limitless, full of wonder. Every time the player finds the answer to some unexplained conundrum, they’re filled with a sense of spontaneous joy. The horizon expands. The world peels back. Every rock and item seems like it could hold the answer to an incredible mystery.

And that’s what we’re all trying to do here, right?

Posted in More games should do these things | 9 Comments

Videogames take everything literally

Sniper was born in the Australian outback. As he grew up, he made a living hunting animals. Nowadays he travels America in a battered camper van, and makes a living hunting men. He has long chats with his mum over the phone, but has a hard time getting on with his dad. He takes pride in doing a difficult job well. He’s a charming, funny character, and at any one time there can be up to 32 of him running around shooting each other.

In a board game, “The Sniper” would be a collection of stats made as an abstract representation of a type of person; a group of people trained in a certain way, with a certain type of weapon. In Team Fortress 2 the Sniper is a very specific man, with a mum, and a dad, and a history, and up to 31 identical doppelgangers.

I have never seen anyone question this.

Let’s go further. In a board game, a “Capture Point” is an abstract representation of territorial control. In Team Fortress 2, it’s literally a giant metal plate that someone’s nailed into the ground; stand on it for a few minutes and the territory is yours. We’ve all gotten past the weirdness of respawning years ago, but it also bears remembering that these mercs are in a Sisyphean hell; forced to repeat their battles over and over and over again, being brought back to fight and die endlessly. In a board game, that would represent reinforcements. Here, it’s the same bloke popping back from the land of the dead.

This isn’t just TF2. While board games depend on metaphorical mechanics, videogames are exactingly literal about everything. With a few exceptions, anything that happens on the screen is exactly what is going on in the fiction. Mario is literally double-jumping in the air, and growing to twice his size, and killing Bowser by stomping on his head.

This gets powerfully strange when you mingle the usual videogame stuff with more metaphorical systems. Turn-based games are the big example here: At their core, turns are a really abstract system for representing time. If the rest of the game is pretty abstract – like, say, Blight of the immortals – this feels fine. When you see realistic 3D models with animations facing off against other animated models in a fully detailed environment, the literal impulse kicks in. It feels like what’s happening on the screen is a 1 to 1 representation of what is going on in the real world. At that point, you realize that everyone is standing around, waiting for their turn to hit a dude.

Most turn-based games actually have idle animations, for gods sakes- animations that show unused characters breathing, twiddling their thumbs- animations that make it clear that time has not frozen for them while another character moves. That they are literally standing there in real time, waiting for everyone else to have a go.

Team fortress 2 gets over it’s literal tangle by just not caring. It’s worth wondering, when someone complains about how a new weapon or hat damages the fiction – is this a world with any internal consistency at all? But it wears it so brazenly that I’ve never even seen someone mention how weird it is that everyone’s fighting their doppelganger. Judging by the amount of jokes about waiting for your turn, though, almost everyone gets weirded out by the uncanny intersection of representational and literal in turn-based games.

It’s understanding, I think, that’s needed here; taking time to consider which mechanics are representational, and exactly what they’re representing.

Posted in Game Design | 6 Comments

I am making a game

Ngyah, see?

It’s true! It’s called “Everything is Jake!”, and I’m making it with my good friend Matt Rundle. Here are rough-drafts of some of the kooky characters who will be starring in it:

Now you're on the trolley!

It’s due on the Fourth of November, so I’ll be able to post some more solid things – and the finished game – fairly soon.

Posted in Actually making something, Everything Is Jake | 14 Comments

What Majora’s Mask does right

The final boss is

the moon.

It’s not rocket science. The game spends all it’s time hyping up this single villain/goal that acts as the centerpiece of everything in the game.

You first see it about five minutes in; It’s above the exact center of the map. After that, you can see it in almost every single level just by looking up. As time goes by, it gets closer and closer – right before the end, it takes up the entire sky. The timer at the bottom of the screen means you feel it’s presence wherever you go, even indoors.

In three days, it destroys the earth, and you are sent back in time. Which means that you have to live through the final moments of the villain winning the game over and over again a hundred times before you get the chance to defeat it. Everything you’re achieving in the entirety of this game is constantly being destroyed by this moon. You can attempt to attack it at any time during the game. You’ll fail. It genuinely feels unstoppable.

Ascending the tower to finally defeat the moon is momentous, but that’s almost beside the point. What matters is how the massive doom foreshadowing has coloured the entire game up to that point. Having your goal laid out to you in the first moments of the game and constantly overshadow you for the rest of it is fundamentally Right.

Here’s the moral of the story: Take the final moments of your game, and stretch them back until every single part of the game is leading to- or at least overshadowed by- those moments. Do this, and your game will have purpose, direction and doom.

Posted in More games should do these things | 11 Comments

What Human Revolution does right

This apartment.

The internet’s already covered what Human Revolution does wrong in great detail. To wit, locks you in a room with a guy who can take multiple rockets to the head. Despite that, Human Revolution has one boss encounter that it pulls off perfectly. Spoilers ahead, folks.

You’re jetting to a new level with your pilot when the chopper is suddenly shot down. You bail out and the helicopter crashes in front of you; masses of enemies emerge and start shooting at it as the pilot urges you to run. If you manage to kill them all before time runs out, she lives. If you run or fail, she dies.

Here’s why this is Right:

1. It forces you to use all the skills you’ve learnt so far to the best of your ability. Human Revolution is (at least partially) about taking out multiple enemies with maximum efficiency; this fight forces you to take out a large amount of enemies in a small amount of time.

2. You don’t have to engage with it. You can avoid the fight, or continue the game after failing. The difficulty of the fight feels self-inflicted; you’re doing this because you want to, not because you’ve been forced to.

3. There is a compelling reason to engage with the fight. If you avoid it, or fail, something bad happens to something you care about. Here, a character that the game has been spending the past 15 or so hours trying to make you care about can die.

Honestly, I think every boss fight should do these three things. When you fight the other bosses in HR- or most bosses in any videogame – there’s no tension. You’re not fighting for anything you care about, and there’s nothing at stake but your life (The most worthless thing you own). The fact that failure has a consequence beyond a reload makes it meaningful; You are genuinely fighting for something other than yourself.

Posted in More games should do these things | Leave a comment

What Psychonauts does right

I’m not going to say “Write more like Tim Schafer and Eric Wolpaw,” because that’s useless. What I’m planning to look at in this series is simple and clever thematic tricks that more games should use.

So you complete the tutorial and the front door opens to let you into the main hub world – in the fiction, it’s a summer camp. It’s big enough to get lost in, with enough secrets to feel mysterious. The exploration is fun, but the main attraction is the NPC’s; the camp is filled with kids, all having conversations with you and each other. They’re well-written enough to be charming. These same NPC’s are there every time you come back into the hub, always in a different place doing something new. It’s unlikely that you’ll hear everything they can say the first time around. The constant changing of these NPC’s makes the camp feel alive.

At a certain point – the point when a good player has found most of the secrets in the camp – the main villain makes all the NPC’s disappear. He’s stolen their brains. It’s now night-time, and the hub feels silent and empty. As you find the last secrets, it only becomes more hollow.

The inevitable late-game draining of content is played as an emotional punch to the gut. The hub that seemed alive with secrets and possibilities before is now totally mapped out, devoid of content, and dead. The villain stole the content. You have to go rescue it. There’s nothing more for you here; you have to move on, and finish the game.

Posted in More games should do these things | 13 Comments

What The Binding of Isaac does right.

You’ve fallen into your mum’s basement, and it’s obvious that the only way out is down. Standing in your way are enemies, treasures, bombs and secrets. Here’s the clever bit:

-There are flies and maggots and other annoyances, but every important enemy is a mutated distortion of your avatar. Some are identical, some abstract twists on your most basic shapes. According to the fiction, they’re your brothers.

-As you pick up power-ups, you become more mutated yourself; growing an extra head, a third eye, bulging flesh. The further down you go, the more powerful and twisted you get.

-The final boss is your mum.

Posted in More games should do these things | Leave a comment

Human Revolution taught me something

RPG’s are no strangers to moral choice. Would you abort a puppy, or kill its mum? These are important issues for the educated super-soldier to consider, and they’re given the respectful treatment they deserve: thrown at you in-between killing aliens, and then never mentioned again. But it’s good to know that after the half-minute multiple choice quiz, you’re fully equipped to handle the puppy abortion issue in real life.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution does something different. The entire game is framed around a single moral question: What do you think about Human Augmentation?

Each moral dilemma in the game is asking you to think about this central issue. And as you jet around the world to explore each new exotic locale, you’re also exploring every side of the augmentation debate. You sneak, hack, talk or fight your way through biotech firms, anti-augmentation terrorist cells, the slums and the ivory towers. And the game never stops asking you what you think. What’s the right action in this situation? What about this one? Each quest that ends with a choice acts as a hypothetical question on a certain aspect of augmentation. Each time you make a decision, you’re cementing and refining your own philosophical stance on Human Augmentation.

And so, of course, the game ends with a choice. It’s the culmination of everything the game has asked you so far, and it’s informed by all the information you’ve been given throughout the game. Like the ending choice of Deus Ex, it’s about the world, and what path you think the future should take. It made me stare at my screen for a very, very long time.

I jogged around in circles. I dropped all my weapons and items in the centre of the room. I crouched, and pretended Adam Jensen was meditating.

When I made a decision and saw the end result, I felt like I hadn’t just been educated about Human Augmentation: By playing through this game, I had formed a full opinion on an issue that I had never cared about before. Deus Ex introduced a lot of concepts, and quoted a lot of people, and it was incredible to see that from a game about shooting people. But it never fully filled you in on any of the questions it raised; it introduced you to them, and expected you to educate yourself. Human revolution keeps it low-key, and it’s characters rarely quote anyone. Instead it focuses on this single issue, and tries to show you how it would affect the lives of real people.

Some spoilers about the ending in this paragraph- no specifics, just the way it plays out. The game ends with the best use of the slideshow-with-voiceover ending I can imagine. The voiceover seems to be speaking about the modern day. The cutscene uses real, live-action stock footage; towards the end, it shows some of the cybernetic prosthesis that are in use now. What it’s saying is; this is real. This issue, and the opinions you’ve now formed on it, are real. Our game hasn’t been making you form an opinion on each faction of a fantasy world; it’s been giving you the tools to engage with a real issue that is about to become very important.

And it’s still so great to see that from a game about a rogue super-soldier who punches people in the face.

REVIEW OVER

Posted in News, Reviews | 13 Comments

Play Dice with the Universe

It's Toasted!

Say there, Jim, you’re looking mighty down! What’s that? No world? Well I’ve got just the thing.

I’ve been on a massive D&D blog binge lately, and as a result I have just fallen in love with random thing-generating tables. I don’t have any use for them, but they’re beautiful things in their own right, like spoken-word poems.

Here’s one I prepared earlier. Roll once on each of the tables below for each bit of world you need, and BAM: You can do in seven minutes what took god seven days.

Continue reading

Posted in Game Design | 6 Comments

What, with your bare hands?

Excellent image by this excellent person: http://makani.deviantart.com/gallery/The following was originally for an assignment, and so could get a bit dry. Moist hand-towels will be available upon completion.

Interactive narration is a classic storytelling technique for games, used to lend context and meaning to space that the user could otherwise interpret in any number of ways. In a surprising amount of games of various genres, this narration is given a very specific, passive-aggressive voice; acting antagonistically towards the player even as it helps them through the game. This kind of narration has most recently gained fame from GladOS of Portal, but it’s also been present in everything from the Hitch-hikers guide to the Galaxy game to online flash titles like Loved.

The first evidence of this voice comes through in the occasional rebukes from the otherwise dry parser of Colossal Cave Adventure, the first Interactive Fiction game.[1] Attempting to attack a dragon or snake would provoke the response “What, with your bare hands?”[2] Despite the essentially characterless nature of most early parsers, these kind of sarcastic rebukes are a running theme through almost all of text adventures. Looking through the source code for  Zork, for instance, reveals that the stored name for the player character is “Cretin”.[3] Even ignoring the outright insults, the universal responses of “You can’t see any such thing” or “I see nothing special about (x)” give text-adventure parsers an antagonistic voice by default, despite their outwardly helpful nature.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments