Designing to a First-Person-Shooter

Update May 01: Wii
This is an update, or extension, to the proceeding paragraphs.
My friend brought up the issue of designing an FPS for Wii, as it was not discussed in this article. Essentially, I feel designing an FPS for Wii is the same as designing an FPS for any other platform: the design must be specific. The Wii pointer is not a perfect emulation of a PC mouse, nor do the remote and nunchuck perform similarly to a keyboard. Though there are similarities, per pixel tracking in particular, designing for Wii possibly requires the most specific attention of any current platform. The Wii interface is still new, and though many an FPS has been developed for Wii, many have also failed to work well on the system. The game design industry is still experimenting and learning about Wii's capabilities. It will likely be a whiloe yet before we have the Wii interface fully figured-out. Many Wii games reviewed are labeled as "shoe-horning" in the motion functionalities of the remote or nunchuck. These are the games that are not taking advantage of the Wii interface but instead ascribing traditional controller functions to a completely different control method. As with any other platform, we need to look at what the Wii controller offers, what does it do, what does it not do, and think about how these controls will best fit a game, and how a game will best fit these controls.

Original Article
Last night, my friends and I had a long conversation about the first-person-shooter. It eventually turned into an argument, or at least a debate. Which was really nice, actually, because we discussed a very interesting topic with widely differing view points.Eventually, the topic turned to PC FPS versus Console FPS. This is a big debate for a lot of people. Some hate console first-person-shooters, some love them. Some are indifferent. My friend's basic stance was that the console controller analog stick will never match the precision of a mouse. And, therefore, the console is an inferior platform for first-person-shooters.

While I completely agree with his first sentiment, the latter point I do not.It would be naive to assume that an analog stick can match the precision of a mouse. The way analog sticks are currently configured, it is simple not possible. At least in my opinion. The mouse tracks per pixel, and the targeting reticule follows the movements of the player's hand. Analog sticks cannot emulate this. Not that they don't have their own merits. I personally find the analog stick very tacticle. In fact, the mouse of a PC can sometimes feel too accurate. Fortunately, most games offer sensitivity adjustment for both platforms.While the mouse may always be more accurate than the analog stick, that doesn't mean the analog stick is unsuited for first-person-shooters. It just means the analog stick is unsuited for the PC first-person-shooter.Do you see the difference? A first-person-shooter, like any other game, must be designed specifically for its intended platform. A PC first-person-shooter must be designed with a mouse and keyboard in mind. The mouse and keyboard is the use interface, the means by which players will interact with the game. Naturally, therefore, the first-person-shooter should be designed to implement the PC interface. The console FPS, likewise, must be designed specifically for the console controller and even more specifically designed for the exact console on which the game will be played. The console FPS must be designed differently than it would be for a PC. The fact is, players will not be interacting with the game via mouse and keyboard. Players will interact with the game with a controller.Which platform is more suited for the first-person-shooter is not the question we want to be asking. This question occurs when people begin to ascribe one platform design to the other. The PC first-person-shooter will not work as well on console. A console first-person-shooter will not work as well on a PC.

An example: Halo, when ported to the PC, was maligned for its slowness of movement in comparison to its speed of aiming. Halo was designed for the X-box. Bungie, knowing the ability of analog sticks, designed Halo to play well on console, movement was intentionally made to be slow because the analog sticks lacked the precision required for tracking the quick movements of characters in PC staples like Quake or Unreal. Hence, when Halo was ported to PC, the character movement speed remained the same, but the sensitivity of aiming was adjusted to match the per-pixel accuracy of the mouse.You cannot expect a PC first-person-shooter on a console. You cannot expect a console first-person-shooter on PC. They are two different platforms, two completely different interfaces. Therefore, you cannot design a PC FPS for consoles. And you cannot design a console FPS for PCs. True, the console controller will never be as accurate as the mouse. But that is really not the point. When designing a console FPS, the designer should know this fact and design an FPS for play with an analog stick, with all its strengths and limitations, and not for a mouse. There is a reason Halo is so good. It was designed to be played with a controller.

That said, I've come to learn that there are many people who will always prefer a PC FPS to a console FPS. They just prefer the precision, regardless of the design of any console FPS. I came to this realization when playing Mario Kart Wii, oddly enough. I played Mario Kart Wii with the Wii wheel for probably a couple of hours spread out over a couple of days. I do enjoy the unique feel the Wii wheel offers when steering karts. Its fun and works pretty well. This is because Mario Kart Wii was designed to be played with the Wii wheel as its primary interface. However, I still felt off playing the game. I just couldn't figure out the control; most problematically, I would frequently drift into walls.

Eventually, I decided to try playing with a Gamecube controller to see how it felt. As soon as I did, I immediately felt better. The game opened up and I was finally driving with some skill. Then I realized: at least for Mario Kart Wii, I will probably always prefer the GCN controller, even though the game was designed to be played with the Wii wheel. And I understood where the PC FPS players were coming from. Given that, I will probably still play with the Wii wheel because I enjoy the novelty and appreciate what the developers are attempting. I want to support the innovation; plus, its more hardcore.The console FPS can be just as good as the PC FPS. However, if the console FPS tries to be a PC FPS, it will likely fail. The console controller is equally as good as the mouse and keyboard, in that they both have inherent strengths and weaknesses. Console FPS's should not be designed to be played with the precision of a mouse; they should be designed for and to the controller, and specifically, the analog stick. The analog stick is a wonderful interface. It has plenty to offer as a means of control, as evidenced by the multitude of quality games released for consoles. Though the first-person-shooter was founded as a PC genre, the design can be adapted for the console, and has been successfully. We just need to look at the console controller and think, "what does this interface offer and what does it not? What are its strenghts, what are its pitfalls?" Then, we should approach the design of this FPS game for the console. Forget the PC first-person-shooter and design for what the console has to offer, and how the FPS form can benefit from the console interface.

Images from Kotaku, SlipperyBrick, GameSpot, TheManRoom,

Crisis Core and Portability

Earlier today I was reading the review of Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII in the newest issue of Game Informer (April). The first thing I noticed, of course, was the review scores of 7.25 and 7.0. I voiced this to my friend, Kay, sitting next to me. He was also surprised by the scores. His response was something like, "What the F***! These guys are idiots!" Kay is the biggest Final Fantasy fan I know. He owns the limited edition of every Final Fantasy game ever made, not to mention every Squaresoft and Square Enix game ever made. For the record, he has never played Crisis Core (though he owns it); Kay is a South Korean transfer student at my college; his copy of Crisis Core is across the ocean. I'm a big fan of Game Informer; so I convinced him to hear out their review, you know, the actual words. He conceded.

In the review, Joe states:

Crisis Core is intriguing from a story perspective, but the mechanics of playing the game are far less engaging. You tromp through various maps, encounter enemies at every node, and slash through them using one-button combos. Magic and other special attacks are accessed by cycling through materia, but you'll usually do just fine with only your sword. There are dozens of side-missions to undertake, but they're all essentially the same task - wander a map, kill a specific monster - over and over. You don't even get experience from this grinding; all of the game's progression, from character level to materia strength, is done through random slot wheels. This arbitrary system also governs when you execute a limit break or a summon, though the specific move you perform is also random. This essentially robs the combat of any strategy, but it keeps you barreling headfirst through the action. The sooner you cut down the bad guys, the sooner you get to the next cool plot point.

Kay remained unimpressed. I began to explain to him the reviewer's point, from a western perspective. Joe thought very highly of the story in Crisis Core, but lamented the combat system and actual gameplay in general. I explained to Kay that, perhaps, the eastern opinion places priority of story in games. This was after Kay had stated that Famitsu had given Crisis Core a 10. The western perspective, however, prioritizes gameplay over story; if the gameplay, combat, controls, camera, you name it, is poor, then the story can only do so much to compensate. Kay patiently waited for me to finish before asking me a very simple question, "Where did these guys play Crisis Core? (meaning the reviewers)" I answered that they probably played in a comfortable chair in their offices.He continued, "You see? Thats the point! They don't know what they're talking about. The console is P.S.P. PlayStation Portable. It is meant to be played on the bus or the train. The combat is simple; it's perfect. You don't want combat that takes too much focus; you won't be able to play on a bus that is shaking and their are people everywhere and you need to get off on the right stop. For complex buttons and analog sticks there is PS3, which I can play on my TV at home and can focus. These guys are idiots."

I agree with Kay. While the possibility remains that eastern and western gaming cultures place different priorities on the quality of a game, this does not negate the fact that portable consoles are designed to be played portably, away from home, and that well-designed portable games are also designed for this purpose. At one point during his speech, Kay said, "I can be out in real life and still be in the world of Final Fantasy." I asked him why, instead of a game, Square didn't just make a movie of Crisis Core instead of a game, by just combining all of the cut-scenes and cutting out all of the gameply. "Oh that," Kay replied, "Japanese just like to move things. They want to move stuff around [meaning the character]. I agree with you there."

For a completely opposite opinion of Crisis Core, read Ryan Clements's review at IGN.

Halo Wars: My Opinion

I've done some thinking about Halo Wars since my last post. The question I posed to both myself and you readers was whether Halo Wars should be designed for balance in the tradition of an RTS, or more so in the tradition of Halo itself. I was undecided on the matter. I thought it important for Halo Wars to have balanced play considering its importance in the RTS genre. However, as Halo Wars is also a Halo franchise product, and not just an RTS, it should stay true to the style and feel of Halo, considering its genetics, so to speak. I was deliberating which was more important when it hit me: The answer, A, is that both franchise and genre are equally important, and B, that neither should have to be compromised for the other's sake?Going back to the issue that started this question, the warthog. The warthog in Halo Wars is like an invincible giant compared to the warthog of Halo yore. It does move like a warthog, true, but by no means does it, or its riders, appear to take damage like one would expect. In fact it seems that Halo Wars is merely a superficial skin on what appears to be no more a standardized RTS template. Maybe thats harsh, addmittedly my knowledge of the game is limited and the game itself nowhere near completetion. Therefore everything I say should be understood with these concessions in mind.

The question I keep asking myself is: whay can't Halo Wars be both Halo and RTS? And you say, "Duh! It is. Thats the point." And I totally agree. But not with the game in its current state. I mean why can't Halo Wars really be "Halo" and "Wars?" Their is nothing wrong with the game being an RTS, indeed it makes sense considering the franchise's history. But who ever said Halo Wars has to be built on the same basic RTS blueprints as every other RTS ever made? Noone (except for maybe Microsoft, who knows). My point is, Halo Wars should play like an RTS but feel like Halo.
I love how the warthog moves, and I love that it can jump huge gaps; its an awesome feature. But the warthog should be just as susceptible defensively as it always has been. As things stand now, the warthog is more like a tank, which it isn't. Hypothetically, it could zoom around and shoot at the same time, perhaps automatically, like airplanes do in Supreme Commander. But, really, Ensemble could do absolutely anything, anything they want. But whatever they do I think its necessitous to retain the Halo feel.

My opinions are premature, to be sure, and probably sound a bit more severe in writing than how I actually feel. But who cares? My opinion is moot, really. Yours, however, is not. What do you think?

Also, I should note that the date system in my blog is working incorrectly. This post was actually made on Sunday, September 2nd. And the previous post on September 1st. I've looked through all the settings and there seems to be nothing wrong. There must be something wrong with the code. Bear with me while I figure out what the problem is, thanks.

Designing to a System: FPS Ports

Oftentimes, first-person-shooters are ported from PC to console, or visa-versa. Some of these ports fit the boot, others don't. The problem is: if a game is designed for PC, it will have a harder time working for consoles. Likewise, if an FPS is designed for consoles, it may not play as well WASD style. Still yet, some console experiences may play quite differently when ported to another console. A quote from Gamespot's Metroid Prime 3: Corruption review.

If this all sounds like a lot of fun, it's because it is. Yet Corruption's focus on refined FPS mechanics and general sense of familiarity keep it from being as special as the other Prime titles. Just like Resident Evil 4 would have felt different--and arguably worse--had its controls been stripped down to a simple FPS scheme, Corruption loses some of its sense of wonder and strangeness on the Wii. Rather than being a true action adventure, it's hard to lose the sense that it's merely an FPS with trimmings. Its core control scheme is a revelation, but the resulting tempo adjustment and streamlining is missing some of the careful pacing that made Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2 so superb. Still, any fan ought to enjoy this outing in spite of those quibbles, thanks to a good number of awesome, involved environmental puzzles and delightful (albeit fairly easy) boss fights.

I don't know about you, but I find this fascinating. Just as Gamespot explains, some of Prime's wonder was its adventure genre focus in the form of pacing, movement, and action speed. I'm well aware that Corruption was designed specifically for Wii, but the Metroid Prime series was not. So what began as a slower-paced adventure series experienced some changes in its transition to Wii. The result, according to Gamespot, is an alteration of game speed and even mood, which they find negative in those respects.The control is better in Corruption, I think most people would argue, or at least quicker and more accurate. Or is it? Because the new control scheme does mess with some of Prime's core concepts, perhaps Corruption doesn't control better after all. However, it should be noted that Retro has significantly altered game difficulty for Corruption, taking into account Wii's pinpoint control scheme. Enemies will dodge and evade you, and the lock-on mechanism will fail when an enemy escapes your vision. So in terms of combat, Retro Studios has adapted Metroid Prime to meet its new console. Whether or not this is true for the adventure element is up for debate. Your thoughts?Another game entirely was also recently ported from Xbox to PC, this being Halo 2 of course. Lets read Gamespy's thoughts on the transition in terms of control:

The controls veer between great and annoying. Compared to the Xbox, both aiming and shooting feel a little bit better on PC. Being able to finally use the mouse and keyboard makes a huge difference for aim-intensive weapons; the mouse turns us into lethal machines with the sniper rifle, or even both the battle rifle and the Covenant carbine (when using the zoom scope in each gun).

As huge and awesome a difference that the mouse brings to aiming, there is an equal step backwards: walking feels extremely slow. We know that Master Chief is a hefty dude, but the walking speed on the keyboard makes it feel like the Master Chief is towing a Warthog jeep behind him everywhere he goes; hopping in a vehicle is a bigger rush simply because it's much faster to get where you're going than on foot.

I find this interesting as well. The plain fact is that Halo 2 was designed for the Xbox. The Xbox has two analog sticks that each control Master Chief's movement and aiming, respectively. Pc's meanwhile have a WASD/Mouse setup. Theres no question that when Master Chief plays computer he can turn much quicker than on Xbox. But the problem is that his movement feels that much more sluggish. PC players expect alot of precision in their FPS aiming. But FPS's designed for PC allow playes to move and jump much quicker as well. When aiming speed doesn't match movement speed, then playing suddenly feels unbalanced.What do you think of all of this? Especially if you've played either Metroid Prime 3 or Halo 2 on PC, let me know your thoughts. The moral of the story is that control is so fricken important to video games, that its essential that games are designed specifically for one control scheme or otherwise specifically designed with multiple control schemes in mind.

Halo Wars: Staying True

Ensemble Studios, the team behind the Age of Empires series, is working with Microsoft on another RTS based on a completely different franchise: Halo Wars.

Halo Wars is an interesting animal. Halo was originally intended to be an RTS, but in the end became an FPS, as we all know. Now Microsoft is dishing out the original goods with a new RTS based on the Halo franchise. While Halo Wars may seem like a perfect fit for the franchise considering its history, Ensemble is in fact designing one big juggling act.

What is more important: That Halo Wars stays true to Halo, or that Halo Wars is a good RTS. Its an interesting question and not one so readily answered as one might think. Watch the following video, and while doing so, think about this question.


Did you notice anything? What happens to a guy that decides to sit idly in a warthog? He gets sniped, instantly. Heck, warthog drivers get sniped just as often while moving. Such is the nature of Halo. But is it, or rather should it be, the nature of Halo Wars?

The thing about RTSs is that they need to be balanced. The thing about Halo is that people get capped nigh every second. That fact that how ever many covenant can't take out two warthogs, or at least their drivers, is completely absurd. For Halo. But as an RTS, maybe the over-powered warthog isn't so ridiculous afterall. How is it possible for Ensemble to retain the Halo feel in its translation to the RTS genre?I do not have an answer, nor an opinion at the moment. I shall reflect on it a while longer and let you know my thoughts. But what do you think?


On a completely different note: this screenshot from Devil May Cry 4 owns my soul. So does this parody on Rayman Raving Rabbids and Assassin's Creed. Except that it would technically be "Bunny's Creed."

Play Motivation

IGN tipped me off to a survey the University of Amsterdam is conducting entitled "Motiviations for Playing Video Games." The survery takes about 15 minutes and is well worth your time. What is most interesting about the survey is how you're forced to question your own motivations for playing. This isn't a simple Q&A, its a search into your soul: Why do you play video games. The most fascinating question, to me, was this:

"While I am playing the video game, I think about how much I enjoy it."

Do you? Answers are guaranteed to be different for different people. Think about this for awhile and then get back to me. I want to know what you guys have to say. After you've come to some sort of conclusion, think about the same question from a designer's perspective. Do you want players to think about having fin while playing a video game? If so, then how do you go about designing a game to achieve this?

Take the Survey
Picture Source

Also, IGN has a great interview with Demiurge Software's director of development about Brothers in Arms: Double Time for Wii. He basically talks about the importance of desiging to a system. Valuable information indeed.

Customizable Controls

Update: Add Itagaki Interview

Ben 10: Protector of the Earth is coming to Wii, and Gamespy has posted a preview. Ben 10 is an action platformer based on the WB cartoon license. Patrick Joynt writes the preview and describes the control scheme as follows (emphasis my own):

The Wii controls were simple enough, with shakes of the Wii Remote and Nunchuk creating the various attacks and the analog stick used for movement. However, what we really appreciated was the option to use button inputs on the Wii controllers. Being able to use the controls you prefer is something every Wii game should support.

Do you agree with this statement. Do you think that Wii games should have multiple control schemes? Do you think games in general should have customizable controls? Mostly, I do not. Particularly for Wii. I feel, that if a game is designed for a system, it should be designed to that system. And that definitely includes controls. We play video games, we interact with them through control. Therefore, the controls should facilitate our playing. The control is the game.
Codename Revolution has a fantastic excerpt from an interview with Itagaki in the August 2007 issue of Nintendo Power.

I think it’s (Wii) a very interesting piece of hardware, and it’d be interesting for us to challenge that area as well. . . . I do think that it’s totally different from the DS, though…I think it would depend on how you make it (a hard-core action title on Wii). You would really have to design it for the strengths of the hardware. If you used the kind of control scheme that most developers are using right now for the Wii and tried to do a really hard-core action game, I think people would just throw up their hands and say “No, we can’t deal with that”. The Wii has its own reason for existence. If you don’t adapt what you’re doing to fit that, then there’s not much point in bringing an action game to the platform.

My problem is not that game control should be customizable. Its that the control scheme and the game should be one entity. I feel like when a game has multiple control schemes, its almost as if the developer couldn't find a single good way to control the game, so the player is instead left with a bunch of sub-par options. This happens all the time on Wii, as it were. However, I also think that in some cases the option for different control schemes is important, like PC first-person-shooters.Lets present a counter argument. Control schemes should always be customizable. Players should have the option to interface with the game in the way that most suits them. If the game has a control scheme that the player is unable to adapt to, then the player just won't play at all. Allow the players decide how is best to play.

My opinion is just one. I want to hear what you think.

Designing To a System: Ninja Gaiden DS

Following up on the other day's Designing To the DS article comes todays post on Team Ninja's masterpiece en route, Ninja Gaiden: Dragon Sword.

I posted on Ninja Gaiden back in march. But much new information has surfaced since then. According to Itagaki, players will be able to fight just as fast and with as wide a set of maneuvers as previous Ninja Gaidens. He has also stated that this is the fastest Ninja Gaiden title yet. And after seeing this gameplay demonstration, I'm convinced it is.

If you aren't able to watch the video then I'll summarize for you. Ninja Gaiden plays almost entirely with the touch screen. Every actual button, face, directional, trigger or otherwise, causes Ryu to block. And thats it. When playing Dragon Sword, the DS system is held book style, ala Meteos: Disney Magic, Hotel Dusk, and Brain Age. Of course the game will allow for left or right handed play, but for the sake of simplicity lets assume we're all right handed. Players hold the main half of DS with their left hand and the stylus with their right. The left screen shows a map of the area along with the requisite indicators such as player location, and the right screen shows all the action. The whole game is played via touch screen implementation and supposedly allows for all the complexity of Ninja Gaiden Black or Sigma. Since I love control schemes so much I've created a convient description for your perusal.

Players move around by tapping and holding any area on the touch screen. Block by pushing any button on the DS. In so far as we know, Ryu is unable to roll. Tapping the screen quickly will cause Ryu to throw a ninja star to that location. Swipe the stylus horizontally across an enemy and Ryu will dash into that enemy and slash horizontally. Same goes for downward vertical swipes. Upward vertical slashes will launch enemies into the air, uppercut style. Double tapping anywhere will make Ryu jump. Double tapping again while in the air will double jump. Swiping across while airborn and Ryu will slash too. Swipe downard while airborn to perform a powerful slam. Tap the screen while in the air and Ryu will throw a ninja star. There are also two special moves. One is the ultimate techinue. To perform this, hold block and scribble the touch screen wildly to charge a strong attack. Continually scribbling will power up more and more. Releasing block will release Ryu's awesome power. The second attack is Ninpo. When enemies fall they drop Ki orbs. Collect them to fill your Ninpo meter. When full, players can tap a "sanskrit" icon in the top right corner of the touch screen to start the attack. A japanese character will appear on screen. Trace the character to unleash the attack. Players can guide the direction of the attack by dragging it across the screen.

Those are the controls. Simple, but effective. And that's really the whole point. A couple of quotations from a Gamespy interview with Itagaki, lead designer at Team Ninja:

The challenge for me is to make the number-one game in the genre. Whether it's fighting or action, I want it to be the best.

First of all when I looked at the DS I wanted to create something where I play while touching the screen, obviously. It could have been anything -- it could have been DOA for that matter. But I decided that it should be Ninja Gaiden.

Itagaki had a couple of goals in mind when creating Dragon Sword: It should be designer for the DS, and it should use the touch screen. The touch screen is a very important part of the DS system. Itagaki is taking advantage of the DS's best and most unique feature. Furthermore, he is not using the touch screen for the sake of using the touch screen. Itagaki is capitalizing on the touch screen's capabilites. He is using the swift input method of the touch screen to create quick-paced, action-heavy gameplay. The various stylus swipes allow for just as much comboing as more traditional controls, and, the control is more intuitive and tactile, always big pluses.

The other thing I should mention is the graphics. Developers have a hard time putting 3D graphics on the DS, I think, ismply because their are very few games that actually do them well. Dragaon Sword is an exception. The way they pulled off the amazing visuals is by making completely 2D backdrops. Not only are the backgrounds great looking, but this allows for more processing to be allocated towards character models and particle effects, which are 3D. And viola, great graphics solved on the DS.

Lastly, a choice quotation. Itagaki:

I’d like to show everybody some of the new stuff that we’ve been working on in the near future. The only problem with that is that when the other developers see what we’re doing, they’re going to lose all of their motivation to create any game in the same genre, because there’s no way they can beat it.

You gotta love the guy.

Sources:
IGN Preview
1up Preview
Gameinformer Interview
Gamespy Preview
Gamespy Interview

Slash and Dash
Do you think that Dragon Sword would play as well with a button control system on the DS as opposed to a stylus control system?

Designing To a System: Nintendo DS

After too much ado, I finally bring you the first Designing To a System article, previously espoused upon. Today's topic is the Nintendo DS.Nintendo DS is a very special system. The handheld is not original, as most probably think. Its neither the first handheld to have two screens, nor is it the first touch screen system. However, the DS is the first successful system to boast these features. The reason for this success is another story. Right now we want to look at what the DS has to offer, then figure out how to make a game specifically designed to it. The most important aspects of the DS, to me, are the touchscreen and the hinge space between the two screens. The touch screen is important for obvious reasons, its literally integral to the system. Touch screens are by nature tactile experiences, more so than buttons or triggers or even remote waving. The reason for this is because their is so much feedback to the player. Touching allows players to feel the screen, see the result of their touching on screen, and hear the touch through both the physical tap and the system's speakers. The stylus brings the game outside of the screen, serving as a bridge between game and player.
On the left we have Yoshi's Island DS, making use of the dead zone. On the right we have Sonic Rush, which pretends there is no gap (note the mesh).

The second aspect of the DS, which I find to be critical to a game's success, is the gap between the top and bottom screen. The fact that the DS has two screens is negligible when considering the hinge strip chasm that separates them. But the blank spot should not be thought of so negitively; just the opposite, think of the hinge as white space. Most any artist will tell you that use of white space is pivitol to painting well. The DS is the same. Designers must be wise to use both screens as effectively as possible while taking into account the space between them. Let us make another analogy: just like with a sonnet or villanelle or any other poetic form, designers must work within the bounds of a systems strengths and weaknesses. The DS's white space is known as the dead zone, there are two ways to use it. One way, the more popular of the two, is to split the two screens by showing distinct and separated images on each. The other way ("using the dead zone") is to fill in the gap between the screens. The latter is to my knowledge exclusively seen in games that play across both screens, like Metroid Prime Pinball and Yoshi's Island DS. To be clear, not all DS games using a single play field across both screens use the dead zone, Sonic Rush is an example of a game that skips the gap.

Yay! The best DS game ever...except for one other. Can you guess my favorite DS game? If you know me personally your excluded from the competition. P.S. Who ever is play stinks.

Whether or not to use the dead zone or the touch screen are not the questions you want to be asking yourself, not even close. We must design in cooperation with the features of the DS in order to create a game that truly fits. When making a game for the DS, one must take the correct approach. Think, "The DS has a touch screen, two screens, and a space between them (among other things that are also important). How can I craft a game that takes advantage of these opportunities?" Design to a system. Otherwise you'll just end up making a square peg for a round hole. And that wouldn't do at all.

I had originally intended to talk about Ninja Gaiden DS in this post, but the post got kind of long. So that's what you'll be getting next, sorry to spoil it for you.

Touching Is Feeling
What other aspects of the DS do you find most important?

Designing To a System

From SixSpace

Something I've pondered much lately is console-based game design. I believe whole heartedly that games should be designed for the specific console for which they're being developed. If you think about it, most of the better games on a console were designed for it specifically. This is part of the reason first-party games are in general better than third-party games, the teams design their games using the console's hardware as a blue print. Games are just better when they are built for the console itself. I feel that with multi-platform titles, developers often make the mistake of standardizing the game across all consoles. When really, each game, even ones that are multi-platform, should be designed according to each system's strengths. This is possibly more important now than ever before. We currently have three fairly different consoles and two very different handhelds, not to mention the PC. Each console has different strengths that a game should be designed to take advantage of.

Today, I start a sort of feature set that will periodically return to this blog. I call it "Designing To a System." And you say, "Don't you mean for?" No, but yes. Designing to a system is like writing a letter. Far away is someone you miss. So you pick out the perfect stationary, buy the best ballpoint pen (Pilot, for the record), and using your most articulate language, carefully craft an eloquent string of words that flawlessly describes your feelings for that person. In the same way, a game must be designed to a console. You want the game and its console to have a good relationship, so a game must be designed to work with the console as best as possible.Sometime within the next few day's I'm going to talk about the strengths of each console, and also post on a specific game I think is being designed immaculately for its system. Like a well-written letter, games are best designed to the system their for, as opposed to being designed like a stock-email.