Terminally Trivial

The recent Xbox Live Arcade release Shadow Complex is getting glowing reviews… for the most part.  One of the harshest (though a still solid B) came from a review by 1UP.com's Jeremy Parish.  In the review, he says:

To call Shadow Complex inspired by the Metroid series would be a terrible slander to the word "inspiration." It's not so much that the developer, Chair, looked to Super Metroid for ideas as it is that they took a sheet of wax paper and did a rubbing of Samus Aran's entire career. It's a clone, albeit one for these modern times — which is to say, it uses polygons instead of sprites, and it's a reasonably-priced download game for Xbox Live. In practically every other way, though, it's completely identical to Super Metroid… down to the powers you earn and the map structure. This is a game where you use missiles to blow up red doors, if that tells you anything.

As I played the game, I found myself agreeing with this statement ten times over.  I'm collecting health upgrades to add little squares to my life meter that represent extra energy?  I'm using a grappling hook to traverse the map?  I'm constantly doubling-back across the map because I didn't have the necessary weapon or power-up to reach a certain location when I visited it the first time?

It's true, I could fill a notebook with the similarities between these two games.  In spite of this, I do give Shadow Complex recognition for improving one aspect of Super Metroid.  I'm not referring to how much fun the combat is, though the melee attack animation is satisfying every time it plays and the power of the game's final weapon makes replaying the game with it a joy.  What stood out for me is how Shadow Complex makes exploration a pleasure, especially in comparison to Super Metroid.  Both games challenge players to collect every item in the game world.  Even as a kid with too much time on my hands for playing Super Metroid, I found this task frustrating to complete.  In Shadow Complex, I was somewhat disappointed to reach 100% completion.  I was having too much fun tracking down all the items and it had nothing to do with my unhealthy obsession with trying to earn achievements (full disclosure:  I did get 20 Gamerscore points for finding all of the items).  I can pinpoint a couple of design choices that led me to feel this way.

First, consider the size of the worlds in these games.  If you don't mind potentially spoiling the experience of them, take a look at the map of Super Metroid's game world.  Now look at the map used in Shadow Complex.  While I think that the Super Metroid game world has more rooms to explore, ignore that for now and just focus on how spread apart the game is.  Compare this to tight corridors of Shadow Complex.  In the latter, it's relatively easy to get from one area of the map to the other.  In a game that requires the player to constantly traverse around the world and revisit previous areas, moving through familiar corridors for the sake of getting from point A to point B isn't guaranteed to be a fun experience.  It might be fun in an MMORPG when the player doesn't know what will be encountered along the way, but the enemies of Super Metroid that stay in the same areas minimize the potential excitement of the journey.

Second, observe the amount of effort it takes to discover hidden paths in both games.  Take a look at this sequence from Super Metroid.  In the span of about a minute of gameplay, there are three different items that can be collected.  All of them are very stealthily hidden throughout the area.  The secret paths in Shadow Complex tend to be much more obvious.  Sometimes an alternate path is behind a vent cover or  a familiar style of door.  On other occasions, a path is blocked by environmental features like rocks that are out of place.  In several instances, Shadow Complex shows the path or an item on the screen.  The player is then left to figure out how to access the secret area.

Metroid fans will be quick to point out that these paths are far from impossible to find without a strategy guide.  In fact, the game gives Samus an X-Ray Scope for this purpose.  The problem is that, assuming the game is played in the intended sequence, this scope doesn't become available until nearly half-way through the game.  Shadow Complex has a similar weapon, the flashlight.  Turning it on and shining it on different areas reveals objects that can be destroyed and, through a color-coded system, lets the player know which weapon will be necessary to eliminate it.  When does the player get the flashlight?  Right after the intro sequence and opening cutscene.  While Super Metroid forces the first-time player to wait until making significant progress in the game to start exploring closely, Shadow Complex gives players the choice to do so right off the bat.  The ability to examine the world as the player encounters it enriches the gameplay with a greater sense of freedom.

Am I ready to declare that Shadow Complex eclipses Super Metroid, one of the greatest games of all-time?  I don't believe so.  The point here is that dismissing Shadow Complex as nothing but a knock-off of Super Metroid is far from accurate.  While it isn't wholly innovative, it is evolutionary in its approach to the "Metroidvania" style of game.  Refusing to purchase the game because it rips off Super Metroid is far from a wise move.

But what about refusing to buy the game for political reasons?  Well, my friends, that is another blog post entirely.

I tweeted about this a month ago, so I guess it's time for a post on it, eh?

The game that has captured my attention the most in the past month is a simple puzzle game called Droplitz.  The premise is pretty simple:  taking its cue from Pipe Mania / Pipe Dream, players rotate dials to make a path from one of the entry points for the Droplitz at the top of the screen to one of the exit points at the bottom of the screen.  There is a limited number of Droplitz.  If too many of them fail to reach the bottom, the game is over.

But here's the weird thing:  I've never been so moved by a puzzle game with absolutely no story.  Most puzzle games are almost sexual in their emotional arcs.  The game board usually becomes more complex, chaotic, and challenging as the game continues.  There may be a moment of rest when the end is momentarily avoided through superb play, but the game always ends in the state of climax known as game over.  At that point, there is an emotional release as the adrenaline rush is over.

So what makes the gameplay of Droplitz so different from the other emotional roller coasters traditionally provided by puzzle games?

While the game's mechanics are spot on, that's not what makes the game truly great.  The way Droplitz handles pressure on the player to perform is marvelous.  As implied above, most puzzle games create a sense of tension when the player is walking the line between playing and game over.  The most frequent tool in achieving this is having the music intensify with a more urgent soundtrack.  Not so with Droplitz.  Instead, the music only builds when the player is excelling.  As the player continues to twist pieces into the correct places to create new paths, both the multiplier and the complexity of the music increase.  Once the player breaks this multiplier by failing to keep a path constructed on the game board, the music returns to normal.  When a game over is reached, a pleasant chime is played and the game returns to the normal in-game soundtrack.

What I've come to realize is that this is game design for Millennials, the group also known as Generation Y.  One of the things that stands out about this generation is the need to achieve and be recognized for a strong performance.  This generation was told they can do no wrong as long as they try their hardest.  Gen Y needs positive reinforcement to perform their best.  It's not simply a matter of getting the job done and staying in the game; they need to know when they are rocking it and need a cushion to land on when they fall.  Droplitz does just that.  The game doesn't contrast playing with not failing, but rather succeeding versus "keep trying."  It's the modus operandi of Gen Y in game form.

All this explains why playing Droplitz is a therapeutic experience for me.  I was born somewhere between the end of Gen X and the start of Gen Y, but I seem more in touch with later.  As part of a world that is still led by Baby Boomers, it's nice to involve myself in an experience that is more in tune with my way of thinking.

While I think it is important for designers to realize that members of Generation X will still be buying and playing video games, Generation Y is entering the workforce and starting to have a disposable income.  Maybe this means I should lighten up about New Super Mario Bros. Wii's new "Demo Play" feature that will help gamers get through tough parts by having the computer play the game for them.  Or maybe this means that I still have some Gen X in me after all.

The shoot 'em up genre (or as I prefer, "shmup") is one that has always appealed to me on paper.  My favorite game of all-time is Galaga, I used to play Raiden frequently during my childhood arcade visits, and I'm still mesmerized by Ikaruga.  The problem is I'm horrible at these games and it doesn't take long for me to remember this fact after hitting that start button.  It usually only takes a few minutes of dying to realize that I should probably switch games.

One of the reasons for this is a contradiction.  For a genre that is called shoot 'em up, one would think the primary objective is to shoot.  Actually, it's to not die.  Players who can successfully dodge enemy fire are going to be better at these games than those like me who have a shoot-first mentality.  The more patience one can show, the more opportunities to attack one has.

This brings me to a Flash game I played recently called Frantic.  There's a lot to love about this shmup.  One can't go wrong with collecting money to purchase upgrades (there is a reason Fantasy Zone used to be so interesting to me as a kid beyond it's weird theme).  The white background is strange and seems cheap at first, but it makes it way easier to see the objects on the screen.  But beyond those notable features, the most compelling design choice is a rare one.

There is no shoot button.

Other than activating either a power-up or special attack, the player automatically shoots at all times.  This means there is no button mashing or holding.  This is a game that is really about movement.  It's about lining the ship up with enemies, dodging their fire, and collecting money and power-ups.  This becomes very apparent in the boss battles.  The boss is wide enough on the screen that players will be hitting him with their ship's fire 90% of the time.  Players can essentially ignore the boss and concentrate completely on slipping around the patterns of enemy fire.

Shmup veterans will probably find this game a bit too easy.  For me, it was somewhat challenging to finish because I decided to hold off purchasing upgrades to my ship until I could afford the best upgrades.  I got down to my last life about half-way through the game, but was able to upgrade soon after that and finish the rest of the game without too much trouble.

Overall, I have to give props to a game that emphasizes what it is probably the most overlooked offensive weapon in the genre:  getting the heck out of the way.

By the way, it looks like Frantic 2 is in development.  There is more information on the developer's blog.  Until then, go play the original now!

In my recent post on the idea that Left 4 Dead may be a casual game, I mentioned the following:

While I don't think Valve could have toned down the violent nature of the game without alienating the hardcore gamer audience, I do think more people would have hopped on board if the initial price point was $20.  Unfortunately, it would have been a financial risk to do so.

Not long after my post, Valve's Gabe Newell discussed this at the D.I.C.E. Summit in Las Vegas (I didn't know he was a reader of the blog!).  The downloadable PC version was on sale on Steam for half-price this weekend ($24.99 instead of $49.99).  What effect did this have on sales?

Towards the end of the speech, Newell showed a slide which revealed that Valve sold one-third more copies of Left 4 Dead on Steam last weekend than it did when it first went on sale (and roughly 3,000% more copies than it did two weeks ago)…

While the article mentions other factors (such as new content) that could have caused the sales and some of the downsides to moving such a large number of copies (loss of future full-price sales), this certainly seems like Left 4 Dead could be a game that would benefit from a low price point… as do most casual games. 

Here's the challenge of my first post:  I always like to get things started with an introductory message.  Unfortunately, the amount of content in that post that would actually make you want to come back and read this blog is minimal.  I mean, the cheery "Let's Go" made by one of the Lemmings the start of a level is more meaningful than one of my introductory posts.  On the other hand, if I make an actual post with content, you're going to read it first when I want you to read it second.  So here's the solution:  go read the first post if you haven't.   Now let's talk about something worthwhile.

- – -

Unlike the "you didn't need that money anyways" deluge of titles that came out in the second half of 2007, the 2008 holiday season only saw me buying only a few games.  One of the only ones that I wanted to buy but didn't get was Left 4 Dead.  Although everyone told me how great it is, even a gamer such as myself who payed $60 for the multiplayer-only Shadowrun was having trouble paying standard retail price for a game that boils down to 4 hours worth of gameplay intended to be repeated ad infinitum.  Still, I did what my middle school health classes told me not to do and gave into the peer pressure, making Left 4 Dead my first (and so far) only non-downloadable game purchased in 2009.

The result:  I have to remind myself of that old saying about quality and quantity… actually, I don't think there's an old saying about those two items.  It's a shame, really.

The issue I'm getting to here is that, at its core, Left 4 Dead is a generic FPS.  Shooting zombies, shotguns, painkillers, pipe bombs, co-op play… it's all been done before.

So why is it so fun?

Because Valve made a casual game.  I know the hardcore gamers are thumbing their noses about now (at which point I steer them toward this XKCD comic).  At the Game Developer's Conference in 2008, Steve Meretzky talked about the characteristics of a casual game.  Two of these items, cheap and non-violent, do not describe Left 4 Dead very well.  How about the rest?

Minimal barriers to entry
It's not quite a Flash game, but minimal instructions are needed.  It shouldn't be too hard to get going on either the PC or the 360 and the game initially tells players what the controls are if it senses the player isn't quite comfortable with the game.

Short play times
It only takes about an hour to finish a campaign and it isn't required that players do that to have a good time.

Depth of gameplay revealed gradually
Players don't need to understand how the special weapons and items work to survive in the easier difficulties.  New zombies are revealed one at a time.

Should be forgiving and highly replayable
The AI Director system gets praise here.  For those unfamiliar with it, the game has the ability to change aspects of the game like zombie quantity and placement based on the player's actions.  When the player is being pushed too hard, the game scales things back.  Each time through a campaign is a different experience.  I haven't looked into the details of how it works, but I certainly don't feel like it interferes with the game when I play… and that's about the best praise I can give it.

In spite of these similarities, there's a reason that Left 4 Dead and Peggle are never mentioned in the same breath.  It's because Left 4 Dead is a casual game made on a AAA title's budget.  Even with all the FPS experience Valve has up its sleeve, the complexity of technology driving a casual game like Peggle pales in comparison to that of a game like Left 4 Dead.  That's why a hardcore gamer won't seem to notice the fact that he is playing a casual game when he starts a Left 4 Dead session.

While I don't think Valve could have toned down the violent nature of the game without alienating the hardcore gamer audience, I do think more people would have hopped on board if the initial price point was $20.  Unfortunately, it would have been a financial risk to do so.  In spite of these two aspects, I think there is a strong case that Left 4 Dead is a casual game in disguise.

What do you think?  Is mom ready to stop bouncing a ball off targets and to start taking down zombies?

(For those who want to read more about Meretzky's presentation on casual gaming, click here.)