Awkward Thumbs

Keith Stuart over at the Guardian wrote an interesting article a bit ago about Mirror's Edge and reviewer quibles. Stuart notes, aptly, that reviews of Mirror's Edge haven't exactly been exceptional. Many reviewers cite a clunky control system as a frustrating hindrance to what Mirror's Edge attempts to achieve: fluidity.

Sterling McGarvey of Gamespy writes, "Although its strict core gameplay becomes rewarding with practice, its combat system never gels with the rest of the experience. . . . The combat's unfortunately its Achilles' heel, since it lacks the spontaneity of the free-running and in many instances brings the action to a crashing halt."

Nate Ahearn at UK IGN writes, "The collision detection is off at times, punches and kicks are very redundant and to perform a true disarm you'll need to slow down time and wait for that brief window when the weapon flashes red to snap it out of your assailant's hands."

At GameSpot, Kevin VanOrd notes, concerning the trial-error frequency and puzzle points, that "you're torn from the experience and reminded that this is, after all, just a game."

But Stuart passes these comments of as "niggling doubts about core mechanics." He goes on to compare video games to movies, and in particular the practice of reviewing each media. He Writes:

For example, no-one complains that, say, Pan's Labyrinth or Eraser Head lack the formal, easily recognizable narrative structure of a conventional movie. Their aspirations exempt them from that requirement. So should we really be marking Mirror's Edge down for control issues – a game that aspires to re-interpret the very interface between player, screen and character?

I think his point is effective. What are we really looking at when we review games? What is more important: the overall picture, or the parts within the whole? Should we look past the minute aspects of a game in favor of the general result? Or should a game be accountable for its details? Afterall, a video game is composed of many, many various aspects, all of which contribute, for the better or worse, to the end result.

Stuart ultimately asserts the following: "And ultimately, what does it mean for games criticism, if we can't appreciate visionary moments, because of these weird little checklists of gameplay qualities, constructed and adhered to with near-autistic fervor?"

Here in Italy, I'm taking a photography class. Today, we discussed the photographer Dorthea Lange, who is famous for her "Migrant Mother" photograph.  Take a look see:

Good photo eh? Interesting subject, great composition, invites questioning and contemplation. Ultimately, an excellent photograph. But what you likely do not know is that the photographer, Lange, went in and edited the photograph after its initial print. Here is the original:

Notice anything? There's a left-hand thumb in the bottom-right corner. Maybe Lange's, who knows? Regardless, this thumb, and more importantly, Lange's decision to edit the photo has drawn quite a bit of controversy. I know, its just a thumb. But what does this thumb do to the overall image? Supposedly, Lange felt the thumb threw off the composition. And it does, actually. But is the edited photograph really that much better for it?

Let's say you were reviewing the original. According to Stuart's observations, you might write something like, "Dorthea Lange's photograph, 'Migrant Mother' is a beautiful depiction of life during the great depression. However, an unidentified awkward thumb in the lower right corner throws off the composition and detracts heavily from the overall image. Therefore, though Lange's photograph hits all the right spots of composition and subject matter, its message is ultimately hindered and degraded by a misplaced thumb. That's why I give 'Migrant Mother' a 7.0/10."

Sounds fairly ridiculous. But actually, its not far from the truth as far as today's game reviews go. Lange decided that the photograph was better without the thumb, and I agree. But if we rewind a bit, is the message of the photograph, or even the composition, really hurt that badly by the thumb? I actually don't have an answer; this one comes down to personal preference. And I think its time to return to video games.

Reviews of Tomb Raider: Underworld have been coming out the past few days. And the results are not so different from that of Mirror's Edge. Guy Cocker at GameSpot writes, "Lara will frequently clip into a piece of the scenery and then refuse to come out until you stop, turn around, and run out of it again. Add all this to an incredibly unruly camera, and Tomb Raider Underworld is still just as frustrating as its predecessors."

Gabe Graziani at Gamespy writes, "One of the major detractors to the enjoyment of Underworld is the unfortunate prevalence of a number of pesky bugs." He goes on to mention one particular bug:

Lara will also occasionally display bizarre behaviors such as holding her arms out as though she's jumping whenever you try to shoot her guns. That particular issue doesn't show up terribly frequently (it only happened once during one level and we weren't able to reproduce the error), but it combines with a number of other little programming missteps to undermine the overall integrity of Underworld.

 Honestly, it seems a bit odd to me to devote an entire paragraph of what is only a two-page review to such a minor quibble, as Graziani even admits himself. That aside, should "pesky bugs" be the foundation upon which judgments are made, or are they just pessimistic thinking?

Here's what I think. There comes a point when bugs and design issues are so prevalent, they detract immensely from the intended experience. When the photograph is full of thumbs is when we need to be seriously concerned. And I really do believe every aspect of a game should function cooperatively. Camera, controls, pacing, combat, you name it. Everything should fit together like a neat little puzzle. If you've got one puzzle piece made of square ends and twice as big as the rest of the pieces, which are made of ovular ends, then the understanding and enjoyment of the overall picture is damaged as a result. But at the same time, I think its OK to forgive a game its minor faults in favor of a greater appreciation.
 
Shadow of the Colossus has plenty of design issues, I think, including significant camera and control troubles, but these wouldn't stop me from labeling the game as one of the greatest of the last generation and a true work of brilliance. Sometimes we have to think optimistically. In a technology and Internet world rife with dissenters, including highly critical gamers, we have to support our games and industry. If you think back to memories of Goldeneye 64 or Perfect Dark, you're not going to remember the fairly obnoxious control scheme, because the game was freaking amazing and offered something truly fun, something you cherish from your childhood memories. Its alright to think optimistically, to look at how the game makes you feel on the whole. Of course, games would be better without bugs, but that's basically impossible with the amount of complexity in games these days. Sometimes we can look at the greater vision and just enjoy what the game has to offer.

Images from 1Adventure

Article at the Guardian via Kotaku. 

Echochrome: Principle-Based Design

Echochrome is about playing with perspective. The game is currently in development at SCEA Studios Japan for PSP and the PS3 Network. Echochrome isn't the first game to play with perspective, another recent title, Crush, featured a similar play style. But perspective as a play structure isn't really what we want to look at today anyway, instead we want to look at perspective as a function of game design. Echochrome features a simple but highly effective design schema: principle-based design. Many, and indeed, possibly all good video games use this very same design method. Alot times people want to make video games far more complicated than they need to be, which in the end just makes them convoluted piles of confusion.Principle-based game design, to eschew the non-descriptive title, can more easily be defined as a style of designing games around a set of guiding principles. The beauty of principle-based game design is its functionality in gameplay. Echochrome is a perfect example of principle-based game design because it really strips the term down to its most basic roots.

Watch this video:


Echochrome has one overarching principle: what you see is true. The gameplay is governed by five principles, all of which rely on the same method of control, which is perspective. The five principles are as follows:

• Subjective Translation
• Connect pathways to create new avenues.
  
• Subjective Landing
• The character will land on what appears to be below.
  
• Subjective Existence
• Cover over gaps to form a continuous pathway.
  
• Subjective Abscence
• Same as Subjective Existence. Cover up holes to make it as if they aren't there.
  
• Subjective Jump
• The character will land on what appears to be above.

The game is run by these laws, or principals. Once the players understands the laws, all that is required from them to solve the puzzles is critical thinking and the use of this knowledge. More broadly, designing a game with principles for gameplay allows designer's to build the game around those laws, kniwning that players understand the rules by which the game is governed. And really, this is how most games are played. You learn a game's mechanics, then you use them to overcome the game's challenges. Obviously there are plenty of other factors, like skill and chance, but truly, principle-based game design is an excellent foundation.

Here is another demonstration of Echochrome's principals taken from an earlier development state.

Lair: Camera Tracking and Control

I took this night's oppurtunity to look more closely into upcoming PS3 game Lair. Lair is being developed by Factor 5 and is set for an August release. Factor 5 is best known for the Turrican series, and more recently, the Star Wars: Rogue Squadron series. Considering they're flight pedigree, Lair has recieved much hype from both the media and Factor 5 fans. But while Lair may be a flight game, it would be inaccurate to call it just another Rogue Squadron. Even while wrestling an unfamiliar, more powerful console, Factor 5 is infusing Lair with plenty of new concepts and techniques.

One aspect of particular importance is the game's camera. Lair is one of the first PS3 games to make use of the console's sixaxis motion sensing functionality. All flight control is handled via tilting the sixaxis. Save ground control, the analog sticks have been put on the backburner for "minor camera control," which means camera rotation. Really though, the camera system is automated. Before I say exactly how flying in Lair is controlled, think yourself about how it would control most intuitively, using the sixaxis motion of course. Finished? Lair's flight control is actually a 1:1 motion system. The angle at which players tilt the controller is the exact angle at which the dragon tilts in game, in real time. The dragon is tied precisely to the player's tilting, so as players tilt the controller, so does the dragon. However, the tilt control is limited to a certain extent, as players will not automatically perform 180's or loops. These are handles with motion inputs. For example, lift the sixaxis quickly to perform a 180 turn.
This form of control is more like holding the dragon in your hand, as opposed to a less responsive handling system where the dragon's tilting speed would vary based upon how far players tilt the controller.Factor 5 has created a very interesting camera system for Lair. Hypothetically, this is how it works. Players fly around while fighting and shooting off fire balls and battling dragons. When players see a dragon in the distance they want to negotiate, the camera will recognize which target the player is flying towards and lock the camera to said dragon. Then, players may close distance by dashing towards their target with a downward motion of the sixaxis. The camera will track and follow the dragon, leading players right to the desired enemy. I really like this concept. However, those of who have actually played the game have some seemingly sound criticizm of the design. In his Gamespy preview, Patrick Joynt has this to say of Lair's camera system:

Most importantly, there are some camera issues that need to be addressed. When you're in the air, soaring across the massive battlefields, and spot a flight of enemy dragons, the design goal is that through careful flying you can simply put yourself behind them, swoop in, and leap from dragon to dragon, tearing apart the entire flight in seconds. The problem is that even versus the easiest enemies, a crazy camera makes this incredibly difficult. Since you have to keep your camera on a foe in order to quickly leap to them, the camera going to random, unpredictable angles when you complete one of these swooping attacks means that you can't follow up on the next flight member. In fact, it's tough to do anything, because your camera is likely to be pointing in a random direction. Attempting to swoop down and grab Tauros (or horses) met with similar results, except that my camera was often then locked about an inch from a wall.

Similar statements come from a preview at IGN by Chris Roper:

All of this works fine in theory, though there are still a couple of kinks that need to be worked out, namely the fact that when a locked-on dragon passes by you the camera will follow it in an awkward manner and you'll have no idea where your own dragon is heading anymore. Once you flip back, you could very well be face-to-face with the side of a mountain.

Sometimes, ideas in concept fail in practicality. If you read game reviews frequently you see this phrase all the time. I haven't played Lair, I cannot comment to the camera system's feasibility. Regardless, I still really like the idea. The game knows where the player wants to go and makes it easier for the player to do so. With dragons flying every which way, it would certainly be difficult to keep a target in sights and track it down, especially with limited camera control. But I guess in the end, the gameplay is priority. And if the camera fails to function the way it was intended, then the line between concept and reality needs to be drawn. We'll have to wait until release to find out.

Lair still looks awesome, though. There are a few development diary videos over at the official site. I highly recommend them.

Fly
What are your thoughts on Lair? Do you like the control or camera system? Why or why not? Which do you value more highly: concept or reality?

Aspects of Too Human

Too Human recently recieved week-long coverage at IGN. Also, lead designer of Too Human, Dennis Dyack, was interview by Gamasutra today. This surge of news has revealed many details of Too Human that as a game designer I'm more than willing to dig into.Too Human is in development at Silicon Knights exclusively for the Xbox 360. The game is actually the first in a trilogy, but for now, the only details Microsoft and SK are revealing are on the first entry. This will be Silicon Knights' first game for the 360, having broken off from Nintendo in 2005. Though two years may seem long enough, Too Human was originally designed for the Playstation, and then moved onto the N64 before scrapped again in favor of its newest version. The game has change much since its beginnings, though, and is one of the most anticipated 360 titles due to release this year. There is plenty to discuss about Too Human, but there are two things in particular I wanted to mention pertaining to game design. One is the camera system; the other is the crippling of gameplay.Lets compare movies and games for a moment. Movies have automatically controlled cameras, not during filming of course, but what viewers see is what the director intended for them to see. Furthermore, viewers don't have to worry about the camera. They can watch a film and simply be present experiencing it. Obviously games are different, they're interactive, and thats the point. However, in 99% of games, players must split their focus. Players must pay attention to playing the game, controlling it and succeeding at the game. But, most of the time, players must also focus on keeping the camera centered on characters, targets, and goals. Camera control is part of gameplay, but in a way it also detracts from gameplay.

Camera is usually second in importance to playing the game. Players have to deal with the camera only because it is necessary to play, not because it is a necessary part of the game's enjoyment. The underlying problem is that developers rely upon player-controlled cameras because, when done right, they can work, but more so because player-controlled camera is the most successful and common camera system and, it seems, the only option. It is simply too difficult to predict what players will want or need to be looking at at any given moment. Thats why developers give players control over the camera, so they can look at what they want, when they want to. This is by and large achieved through the right analog stick. But Dennis Dyack and the team at Silicon Knights are bucking this trend. For some of Dyack's thoughts on game camera, please see an earlier post discussing this issue. What Silicon Knights has done is take the camera control out of the players hands.

from TooHuman.net

Too Human features a completely automated camera. The camera will dynamically track the player's and enemies' movements to get the best shot of the action. At least in theory. The system seems to work well in practice also, according to previews and videos. Allowing the camera to control itself removes what could be called a burden from the players' hands. At least thats what the team believes. IGN interviewed creative director at Microsoft Games Studios Ken Lobb. He had this to say:

As our audience gets bigger and bigger and bigger, having all of our games be dual-analog where the right analog stick is controlling the camera is something that's not super easy, especially if you want to see a particular scene from a different angle. If you want to make something more interesting from a camera perspective, having the player control that becomes even more complex....we get this cool what you might consider a normal third person camera blended with room cameras, cameras on splines, boss cameras, and more.

Cameras are complex. Unless you have split screens, there can only be one camera shooting from one perspective at a time. Silicon Knights is doing their best to find the optimal camera, it seems. The flip side of an automated camera system, is that the right analog is free for use. Too Human's combat system is played almost entirely with the right analog stick, adopting the dual-analog scheme also seen in EA's upcoming Skate. This has been done before, in games like Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Jet Li: Rise to Honor, and even Geomotry Wars (all Xbox titles, incedentally).

The player character of Too Human, Baldur, will attack in the direction dictated by the analog stick, according to the camera's viewpoint at the time. The right and left triggers in conjunction with the right analog stick shoot the primary and secondary ranged weapons, respectively. The game has a lock-on system, too, that will auto lock depending on which way the stick is being pointed. So, really, everything is based on the analog stick, which is quite different from most games out there. Whats most interesting though, is how the auto-cam and combat system work together. Lobb sums it up well:

It gives you a nice fluid ability to switch quickly between targets on the screen without having your camera jump all over the place. It all works together. . . .When you add a layer on top of that of, "We have some pretty cool stuff you can do with the sword with the right stick," it kind of disallowed the ability to give players control over the camera at all times.So it's a nice mix of creating an experience that's more like watching a movie, making a camera that's more accessible and developing a new control paradigm around combat with the guns being on the triggers and the sword being on the stick so that you can quickly switch between guns and sword. It's all fit together nicely

Silicon Knights is aiming for speed and fluidity. They want players to be able to kill and combo enemies quickly and efficiently without worrying about controlling the camera. Too Human takes camera control away from the player and replaces its normal input method with directional combat. This way, players can free-form fight enemies while the camera smoothly follows the action. Requiring the player to control the camera would A, not allow for directionally-based combat, and B, slow down the action. People can only focus on so many things at a time, removing the camera from the players hands allows them to focus solely on ripping through enemies. The design is unique and looks to be effective as well. My only question is what came first, using the right analog stick for combat, or having an automated camera? The answer is probably both simultaneously, thats how complementary they are.

The second aspect I wanted to touch on quickly was that of crippling gameplay. First, read this previous post discussing this very issue. Second, watch the seamless cinematics video of Too Human showing off the interactive cut-scene. Keep in mind the player has full control over Baldur during this flashback scene.

Did you notice anything? The player, Baldur, cannot run, only walk. Why? For cinematic effect. I love what Silicon Knights does in this scene (and likely other scenes as well). Baldur will only walk seemingly regardless of pressure applied on the analog stick (which is analog for a reason). Some may think thats counter-intuitive, I call it art. This small aspect of design shows me how much thought and care is going into the creation of Too Human, and how small decisions over gameplay can completely change a player's experience.

Too Much?
How would you feel, preliminarily, if Too Human was controlled with the tradition scheme of button pushes and analog camera control? Why or why not would this be preferable over the actual system Silicon Knights has employed?

What do you think of developers crippling your mobility in a game? Particularly this scene in Too Human, would you rather run? Why?

Camera: Dyack and Kojima Speak

"It's Metal Gear Surveyor! Uh-oh! No Place to Hide!"

Camera is one of the most important elements in video game design. Camera is a huge factor of both gameplay and narrative. Camera is a big issue for 3D games, and unfortunately, oftentimes hinders gameplay rather than helps. Even 2D games come with a camera in regards to distance and scrolling. What makes for a good camera and good control to complement it? Two game designers have recently touched on the camera in game design: Dennis Dyack and Hideo Kojima. Dyack you'll recognize from Silicon Knights. He designed Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes (ironically enough, considering Kojima is the other featured designer of this post), and Eternal Darkness, and is currently working on Too Human for the 360. Game Informer interviewed Dyack back in their January issue. Here is an one answer from the interview:

I think that when we transitioned from 2D games to 3D, we introduced camera control to the player and added a layer of complexity. I think we lost a lot of casual gamers. When you play Splinter Cell, you get really frustrated because you can't control the camera while you are trying to kill someone. We found that, if we control the camera for the player, it actually makes the game more accessible [referring to all Silicon Knights games, and inparticular Too Human]. If you look at Hollywood, there is a language of film; so we combined that language with good cinematography so you feel like you should not have to control the camera. We want to take it to the next step and we are going to keep working on it. Our philosophy is one of accessibility. We are creating interactive entertainment and it's got to be fliud and dynamic. But at the same time, I've often though that playing a video game like the old Tomb Raiders, where you are looking over the character's shoulder for 14 hours, can be incredibly boring.

Essentially, Dyack feels that camera control has never been precise enough, and is too frustrating to be implemented into any game well. This explains Silicon Knights's use of automated cameras. I must say I disagree with him in regards to Splinter Cell, in which I found the camera control simple and effective. However, I love what he says of fluidity. If the camera is cumbersome or in any way interferes with gameplay, then all flow and comfort is lost. But, the same can be said for automatic cameras too, which are often unrealiable. Too Human itself features a completely automatic camera that is also dynamic. Too Human is an action-heavy game, the player moves quickly and jumps to extrodinary heights. The camera is designed to follow players dynamically-matching their movements. At the same time it will give cinematic shots of the environment and action. Im betting the camera will work very well, it is apparently very important to Mr. Dyack.

Check out the particle effects, the final game is bound to look even better

Hideo Kojima spoke today at the G03 conference in Australia. His presentation was on the creation of Metal Gear and how the series has come to thrive since. Gamasutra has covered the presentation and wrote the following on a portion of Kojima's presentation.

Metal Gear Solid [for the originial Playstation] was named for its star, but also because for the first time the environment was 3D - it had volume, and was 'solid'. To create the feeling of being in this 3D world, a three-camera system was developed. First was the traditional overhead camera, same as the 2D games, and it was complemented by the first person view, where "the player shares Snake's view". The third camera, which Kojima considers "very innovative" was the "cinematic view", where the camera pulls down when you push against a wall, and allowed for some very dramatic gameplay set pieces.

The Metal Gear Solid series is sometimes criticized for its preset camera, and other times lauded. Preference depends on the individual player. Regardless of what people think, Kojima has an awesome concept for camera design, shared in this quote. Cameras do not have to be static or only shoot from one perspective. MGS's camera features varying shots, switching depending on the situation.

Snapshot
Which camera do you like better, automated or player controlled?
Think of games you've played in which you are particullarly fond of the camera. Why is it you -like this camera design? How is the camera controlled?