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. 

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,

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.

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?

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?

Skate

This fall, Electronics Arts is publishing a new ip for the 360 and PS3. This game is Skate. Skate is in development at Vancouver by EA Black Box, developer of Need for Speed Underground and Need for Speed Carbon. Activision's Tony Hawk games have been the only truly sucessful skating games for the past several years. The only other contenders regardless of their sucess were Disney's Extreme Skating and Go! Go! Hypergrind! EA has finally realized this gap of competition in the skating genre and is creating what looks to be a fairly worthy contender to the throne. The comparisons stop there though, as Skate differs from Tony Hawk in most every way. The game's title, as a matter of fact, is representative of Skate's gameplay, it is a shift in focus to the roots of skating.

Skate has completely mo-capped animations

Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series are obviously skating games but aren't exactly simulation. Like the Burnout series, Tony Hawk falls into the arcade-type category. EA's Skate, meanwhile, attempts to simulate the skating experience as closely as possible. Black Box is attempting to achieve this in a number of ways. A primary method is the attempt to emulate the emotions felt by skaters. There are two very important emotions skaters thrive off of, these are a sense of being humbled, and the feeling of accomplishment. Black Box is emulating these emotions through what else but the controls and physics engine.

Many EA games from the past few years share a common feature, what EA dubs “All-Analog Control.” Tiger Woods has it, Fight Night has it, NHL on 360 has it, even Def Jam has some analog input. Well, Black Box has adopted this control scheme for Skate now too, and you know what, it appears to work very well for what EA is trying to accomplish with the game. In general, the left analog stick controls your skater's body, the right controls your feet. Here is what Gabe Graziani at GameSpy describes the controls:

If you want to do an ollie (the industry standard for getting air), you just hold back on the right analog stick and then quickly punch it forward. The right analog stick is an analog, so to speak, of your feet, so by pulling the stick backward, you shift your weight to the back of the board in preparation for an ollie. Then when you flick the stick forward, your skater will pop the board up with his back foot and slide his front foot forward to execute an honest-to-goodness ollie, just like a real skater would. . .these are not just canned animations, but actual physics calculations being done in real time

As Graziani says, the left analog stick controls the foot work. Also, since it is an analog stick, it allows for analog input. Flicking quickly will do a short ollie, whereas holding down then flicking will ollie higher and further. Ollie's are obviously not the only move in a skater's repertoire. Kick, heel, toe flips, and others, are also handled with the right analog stick. When beginning an ollie, push the right stick to the left or right a bit to move the skater's foot to that corner of the board. Flicking the stick back to the right direction will then begin a more complicated ollie. Holding the stick when pushing up, instead of flicking by letting go, will cause the board to spin, allowing the player pull-off a kick flip, for example.

Everything in Skate is within the realms of possibility. Even that.

The left stick controls skaters' movement, essentially by shifting their body weight. But unlike Tony Hawk, players will have to actually push their board to build up momentum. This is done by pressing A or X. The A button pushes with the right foot, the X button pushes with the left. Rapidly tapping the button will get you nowhere, however. As Graziani puts it, a rhythmic series of long button pushes is need to really gain speed. The B button will slam the skater's foot down, allowing him or her to break. But if players are holding the left stick either left or right, and then hold the B button, the skater will skid and switch the board into the opposite direction.

Pushing forward on the left stick causes the skater to crouch, giving greater precision over the board. Tony Hawk forces players to push a button to grind, Skate does not. Players can grind simply by ollieing up to a rail, ledge or step. The approach to the rail is the most important. Along with the left analog stick, the approach will dictate if and how you grind. One the skater is grinding, the left analog stick will balance him or her, and the right stick will perform tricks.

When I was your age, we had to Skate to school with no trucks, uphill both ways.

Manuals are also analog based. Simply tilt the right stick up or down to manual on the front or back wheels. Grabs are performed with the shoulder buttons. The right and left triggers grab the board with the skater's right and left hands, respectively. When in the air, the left stick can be held left or right to rotate the board, for sick 1080's and the like.

One final note is that the skater and board will automatically readjust to match the ground. So player's will not have to worry about landing, similar to how snow boarding games work. For example, when players ollie into a bowl, the skater will automatically push forward on the board to meet the angle of the ground.

All of these controlled are physics based. The analog sticks will shift the board and the skater's body and feet based on how long, far and hard the stick is pushed. Every gaming editor who's tested the game says its harder then Tony Hawk, and indeed its control scheme is harder to immediately master than many games, which is a good thing. But thats the point. Once again Black Box is trying to simulate real-life skating in a video game, and guess what, skating is hard. Executive producer of Skate, Scott Blackwood had the following to say in an interview with IGN:

We're aware that we're running that fine line between realism and what works best for a video game but from what we've seen so far everyone seems to be "getting it." One example - we've heard time and time again that the un-natural hyperdrive speed of other skate games has made the monumental feats of real skateboarding seem trivial, so one of the biggest things for us was to create a groundbreaking physics engine that would allow us to really sell the 'feel' of skating to a non-skater. The first time you hit a gnarly grind or succumb to physics by bombing a big hill, you'll understand what I'm talking about.

Tony Hawk had an arcade feel, and that's part of the point. You can do things in games that you can't do in real life. Or is it? That is the beauty of game design and indeed any art form. Freedom. Designer's and developer's can choose to make a game any way they like. Video games are a diverse art, just like paintings. You have Picasso, but you also have Davinci.

This what happens to people after they've been mo-capped, they become ridicuslously realistic looking in-game avatars. Stop mo-cap, save people. This message brought to you by Jack T.

Back to the emotion the game is trying to tap into. Blackwood spoke on that as well.

One of the biggest limitations in reality is the fear and danger of injury. There is an absence of any real fear in the game that let's you take 100 tries at a trick with maybe only one successful landing. There are risks and injuries in the game, but it wouldn't be fun if they resulted in 'game over' or if the game was locked for weeks due to an injury. So we will see many attempts at crazy tricks and successful results where in reality nobody ever would have tried it.

Skating can certainly be frightening. But you can't exactly break players' ankles when they fail a kick flip. Furthermore, skating is all about failing and experimentation, and trying the same stunt again and again until you succeed. This is what Black Box wants players to feel with Skate. Players will learn the control basics, then roll out on the pavement to just have fun exploring their board. And really, I think this is an awesome idea for a game. It brings back the trail-and-error gameplay that resides in so many arcade games from twenty odd years ago. And won't it feel great when you pull off that 900?

The last thing I wanted to talk about was another feature of Skate that differs so greatly from Tony Hawk. And that is character progression. In Tony Hawk, characters would upgrade stat points through purchase, or through actually performing the move, depending on the game. Skate has none of this. Its not about the character. The character is an avatar. The character is you, the player. Just as people get better at real skating through practice, players gets better at Skate skating by tricking their hearts out. There is no character progression, the character's ability will remain static the entire game. It is the player who will improve upon his or her skill. I think this is awesome, really. Again Skate hearkens back to arcade games of yore.

Sources:
GameSpy Preview
Gamespot Preview
IGN Preview
IGN Interview
1up Preview
Team Xbox Preview

Images From:
Skateboard-About
The Gamer's Gallery

Their is also a gameplay video available that I will be embedding as soon as the site allows. Check it out here.

Push It
How do you feel about the gameplay and emotive concept behind Skate versus Tony Hawk's proven skating game design?

P.S. The Gamers Gallery is a really fantastic new site that features watermark-free screenshots of games. Their screen gallery is small, but they are building momentum quickly.