Prince of Persia and Graphics

The above are in-game screenshots. Yes, really. When I first saw them, I almost cried. This game is so unbelievably good looking. This is the new Prince of Persia. Rumor has it the game is called Prodigy, according to a recent trademark filing. According to a press release at Kotaku, Prodigy will be released for PS3, 360, and PC. Another Prince of Persia game is also in the works for the DS. Most importantly, Prodigy is being developed by Ubisoft Montreal, the same studio which developed the Prince of Persia trilogy for the previous generation, and also my favorite developer.

Below is more concept art and renders from Prodigy.

The video game medium is a graphical medium, hence the "video." Our technology, is nearing a peaking point. Thats not to say, however, that in ten years we won't have more realistic graphics; indeed, the potential for realism in ten years will be uncanny. But right now, our present technology allows for a broad range of graphical expression. We can have graphics as realistic as Metal Gear Solid 4, as cartoony as The Simpons Game, or as beautiful as Okami. That said, I think our industry is sometimes afraid to break away from realistic graphics.

There is nothing wrong with emulating reality, if that is what the game calls for. Half-Life 2, in order to relay its story, to convey its message, is best suited with realistic graphics. Using the same engine, Team Fortress 2 possess graphics that represent its own themes explicitly for the purpose of gameplay. Not all games need to be so graphically defined. In fact, we are normally just fine with graphics that fall somewhere in between. And thats a good thing. In the same way that it would be shame if all games featured realistic graphics, it would be sad if games either had to be completely realistic or completely "cartoony."

I think we need to be wary of defining our games by their graphical aspects alone. Okami is downright gorgeous, but its gameplay, its story, and its themes are also commendable elements, to say the least. Part of why Okami succeeds as a game is because each of its elements work copperatively to form a cohesive experience.

That aside, assuming these screenshots are truly representitive, I think that Prince of Persia is the best looking game ever made. Just look at them. When you see these screenshots, I can't help think "what have we been missing." Prodigy continues in the footsteps of The Wind Waker, Okami, and Team Fortress 2 to demonstrate exactly what video games are capable of graphically. Graphics have progressed to a point that allows us to visually express ourselves in nearly any way imagineable. Prodigy looks like a comic book. The fact is even more profound when we consider that Ubisoft Montreal's other two franchises, Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed, are highly realistic graphically. I've already expressed my love for Ubisoft Montreal, but you've got to hand it to them, they are some talented folk.

Screens from Joypad via Pro-Gamers
Character screen from Recenzeher

What Comes First: Gameplay or Story?

When designing a game, particularly a role-playing-game, which comes first: the story or the gameplay? Think about any RPG, is the story more important or the gameplay? Regardless, which aspect is the primary design point?

In an interview with IGN, Eisuke Yokoyama talks about the development of Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings for the DS.

We did not set out to make a game that was connected to FFXII. In the beginning it was supposed to be a 'My first Final Fantasy' experience - that was the overall plan for this game. We had already created the battle system. It was ready to go, but at a certain point during the development and planning process, Toriyama's team started talking. FFXII had just been released and it was really popular, so it was more a matter of timing that it turned into this kind of game.

I was surprised to read this. I actually don't think there is any one order to design an RPG, or any game, for that matter. Whichever comes first comes first. If you come up with a great story that would work well with a video game, congratulations. But I think its probably equally effective to come up with a gameplay system and then build a theme and story around it. Both aspects are very important, however. Whichever comes first, in the end both need to be given equal consideration and development. An RPG needs both to be truly great. Personally, I almost always design the gameplay and control scheme before even thinking about anything else. But who knows, maybe one day that will change if an interesting story and world suddenly pop into my head. Both approaches are entirely feasible. Which foot do you start off with, gameplay or story? And do you think one approach is superior to the other.

Crush

Crush is not the first puzzle of game of its ilk for the PSP. You may recall, there was also Exit and Practical Intelligence Quotient. Players control characters in each of the aforementioned titles, unlike traditional puzzle games like Tetris of Lumines. But what seperates Crush from all of them is its perspective switching gameplay. Crush was developed exclusively for PSP by Zoe Mode. The closest video game comparison one can make to Crush is Nintendo's recent Wii title, Super Paper Mario. What makes both games special is the ability to switch perspective.

In Crush, players take control of Danny as he explores his unconscious. The nether-regions of the mind are manifested in elaborate three-dimensional floating block mazes. To complete each level, players must collect lost marbles while finding their way to the end. This, however, is impossible to achieve within the limitations of the three-dimensional world. Fortunately, players can switch the game's perspective at any time with the tap of a button, "crushing" it. What was once three-dimensional is now two. In Crush, Super Mario 64=Pac-Man. When the perspective is snapped from 3d to 2d. The whole world flattens to the plane on which Danny is standing. Foreground blocks and platforms fade backward, and background blocks come forward. Sometimes this means side-scroller style perspective, other times it may mean top down. This allows players to cross seemingly insurmountable obstacles. But what makes this gameplay mechanic so awesome?
This is what I like about Crush. The game has a single gameplay mechanic: switching perspective. This tool is simple enough to be understood, but complex and dynamic in use. The player understands this tool, what it does, how to use it, etc. Therefore, the game becomes a test of player skill. The question isn't how to use this gameplay mechanic, but how best to use it.

The fact that players can switch perspective is awesome, to be sure, but is a novelty compared to what else this game achieves. Crush successfully implements one of video gaming's greatest goals, challenge and player skill. The levels are a challenge, neigh, unbeatable without the perspective mechanic that Crush makes available. All thats left is how good is the player at using that mechanic. I'll tell you right now, this is what 90% of video games are, and what makes the best games so good. Think of any game you've ever played. Unless its built 100% on chance or luck, your game gives players a challenge along with tools to overcome that challenge. The best games figure out how to take these tools and make the game neither too easy nor too difficult for the player. The difficulty is dependant on how much player skill is required. Enter Crush. Players can crush the game world. Awesome. But the crushing is not what really matters, its the player's ability to use the mechanic that makes the game good.

Sources:
1up
Gamespy
IGN

Crush
Why do you think Crush is cool?
Do you agree with anything I just said? Why or why not?
Have you bought Crush yet? My mailbox address is...

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?

Wii: Invalid Arguments versus Actuality

OK, so I lied. I'll be posting on Warcraft III this weekend when I have the opportunity to mess with it at home. Today, I post the rant I spoke of earlier in the week. Enjoy.

There are a lot of differing view points on Nintendo's Wii. Some love it, some hate it. Some think Wii innovative, others gimmicky. One of the most controversial issues related to Wii is its lack of graphical prowess or computing horsepower relative to the 360 and PS3. At the same time, many people say graphics are irrelevant when Wii has such an innovative controller, a remote that promotes supposedly more fun and innovative gameplay.

But, you know, people too often mistake Nintendo. Many tout the remote as having massive potential for great gameplay, but what most do not realize is that marketing verboseness and great gameplay potential do not equal great games. In the end what matters is not the potential for gameplay, but the actual gameplay present in the games themselves. People can claim Nintendo to be superior to their competitors in that they are focusing on the supposedly superior aspect of video games (gameplay as opposed to graphics), but what matters most is that the games for Wii, and DS for that matter, play well.

The Wii remote is really quite amazing. But designing games for the remote is not easy by any means. In fact, a large majority of Wii's games, I think, do not play particularly well with the remote. The term “shoehorn” is thrown around a lot concerning Wii games, and much of the time the criticism is valid. Too many Wii games are ports with motion-lite remote implementation. There are a few great games that make fantastic use of Wii's potential, however. Wii Sports in particular is quite awesome, Super Swing Golf is great, and WarioWare: Smooth Moves is like a smorgasbord of fun. The game isn't out yet, but Heatseeker also looks like an interesting use of the remote, the pointing function specifically.

Here is my problem, too many people claim Wii as the king of all game systems because of its innovative remote. Graphics be darned, gameplay is all that matters. But so many of these statements come with conditions. Saying graphics aren't important is a lie. Of course they're important, we are, after all, speaking of video games. Even the most die hard Wii proponents can;t possibly be willing to put up with muddy graphics. Besides, Wii's graphics aren't bad per se, they just can't compare to the competitors'. As a side note, it is for this reason that we will see many cel-shaded or more intentionally unrealistic Wii titles over the consoles' lifespan. It is easier to make them look good on Wii, as opposed to photo-realism. The last thing I wanted to say is about the remote itself. Innovative is how most people define it. While this may be true, a more apt description is different. The remote automatically makes Wii gameplay different from that on 360 and PS3 due to its motion and pointing sensing capabilities. But more importantly, the remote has potential for better gameplay. Therefore, the better-different games will by nature be innovative in their use of the controller. The dichotomy is important; it's not so much the remote that is innovative, it is the use of the remote. Wii is a piece of hardware, a medium defined by its software. Any console is only as good as its games. Wii's power is wasted without games that creatively and effectively use the remote's capabilities.

Heatseeker

The next time someone says to you, “Hey the Wii is so amazing, its really innovative! Who cares about stupid graphics?” Say back, “First of all it's not the Wii, it's just Wii. Secondly, your right, kind of. Wii does have a rather awesome controller, but the console is obsolete without games that fulfill its potential. Thirdly, graphics are super important, and just because Wii's graphics can't compete with the 360 or PS3 doesn't mean they're bad. Don't fall prey to PR speak, kid, and you'll grow up just fine.”

Sources:
Wii logo image from Wiisworld
Controller image from Nintendo
Heatseeker image from IGN

ICO: Pacing and Emotion

Pacing is an important aspect of game design, but probably doesn't recieve as much attention as it should. I recently played ICO for the PlayStation 2. ICO was designed by Fumito Ueda and developed by SCEI back when the PS2 first launched. SCEI has more recently developed PoPoLoCrois and Shadow of the Colossus, which was also designed by Ueda.

ICO is one of the greatest games ever made, and part of this is because of well-designed pacing. Pacing is difficult to define. But it partly refers to the balancing of time-played with gameplay intensity. Pacing also has to do with how often story sequences arrive and how much gameplay is spent between them. Most games probably use both fast and slow pacing, switching between them to strategically affect the player. ICO has incredible pacing. If you haven't played through ICO, you may consider the following a spoiler. Also, go play ICO now. What's wrong with you?

The pacing in ICO is mostly very slow. Players slowly work their way through the puzzle environments while occasionally fighting shadow enemies. Every once in a while, though, a story sequence will show up that feeds players information, and pushes them forward. Additionally, the entire game is kind of like one big story sequence. During any given moment, players are exploring the castle and understanding its structure while contemplating its purpose. More importantly, players are constantly fighting for Yorda, players want to save her. The emotion, effort, and feeling towards Yorda grow more and more as players work their way through the game. This is all very important for the end of the game. The game is reliant on players feeling for Yorda to drive the story and create an emotional gameplay experience.When ICO and Yorda are split when crossing the bridge (I'll be posting more on this in the near future), all of the emotion for Yorda culminates within the player. This creates an intense drive to save Yorda, even if its the last thing you do. Did you notice, that players cannot save after the bridge scene until the game is finished? Their is a very important reason for this. Fumito Ueda intentionally forced the player to continue playing until the end. The reason is simple: Ueda wanted all of the emotion from the bridge scene and from Yorda being taken away to still be present in players through the end. Ueda wanted players to feel a rush of emotional energy, and wanted that energy to fuel their motivation for saving Yorda. If players were allowed to save after the bridge scene, chances are the emotional impact of that event would have disipated when the player came back to the game to save Yorda again.

Pace Yourself
Think back to the games you've played, maybe you've played God of War, or Super Mario Sunshine, or Guitar Hero. How was the gameplay in game paced?
-Did the pacing work well or not so well?
-What would you do differently to make the pacing better?
Also, Where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?

Crippling Gameplay-Its Uses

Today, I've asked myself a hypothetical question? Is it OK to cripple a character's abilities after they've already been established? What uses are there to crippling a player character?

Lets look at some examples where the player was crippled, like Metroid Prime, where the player is crippled after the opening sequence. Samus' first half-hour on the frigate served a number of purposes. It served as a tutorial, teaching the player how to use most of Samus' abilities and functions. In this way, the player already knows how to use Samus' moveset later in the game. It also "teased" the player by showing what Samus' will be able to do in the future. Need for Speed: Underground 2 also teased the player, allowing the player to handle one of the game's best cars in at the very start, before taking it away. The player then had something to strive for; allowing the player to test drive a top-tier car served as motivation.

Samus loses her suit

But, is it feasible to cripple a charater temporarily? Specifically, how about to create a certain mood. Let us assume the player character can run fast, jump etc. A few hours into the game, a dramtic event takes place, but the player is still in control of the character. What we are striving for is it elicit emotion. We want the player to feel sorrowful perhaps. Player's are restless, I wonder what the walk-to-jump ratio is in massively multiplayer games? In our game, lets say someone is being sacrificed at an alter at the end of a hallway. There are candles down the aisle of colums, a red carpet leads up a set of stairs to the alter. Slow, powerful music plays, probably violins are involved. How would the mood be effective if the player were running and jumping all over the place? Mayebe it would, whos to say? But, what if the character were handicapped? What if the player could only walk, that is all, just walk towards the sacrifice?

Then the mood would presumably be much more dramatic.

It is likely that the player even wants to save the one being sacrificed. So then we must ask, how will the player react to this sudden crippling? The answer is obvious, many would be aggrevated (effectively negating the intended drama), a few would appreciate what the designers are trying to achieve. So, is it feasible? Maybe, maybe not, the act of crippling a player is likely much more specific to game and scenario. So what if in our game, the player character has just been poisoned or severly injured, and limps and stumbles across the carpet, spitting up blood? Ah! Now the player has a rational explanation for the crippling of the character. And BAM, the mood is set.

Is it that simple? Personally, I think this specifically could work very well in achieving all purposes, and maybe help in advancing the story. Resident Evil 4 avioded this confliction entirely. Much of the game is built on mood, and relies on its effectiveness on the player. In RE4, Leon can walk or he can run at a fairly slow pace. Leon can only move so fast for a number of reasons: each area or room is only so big, but heavily detailed, and, the ganado are everywhere, forcing the player to carefully approach each situation. Therefore, the player has no need and no desire to move any faster. Everything about this works cyclically, the end result is that Leon's slow movement allows the mood to establish itself within the player. When the game becomes particularly moody or dramatic, the player has the option to walk slowly. I found myself walking through much of the game, I wanted the mood to have an emotional impact on my game experience. Players with options will sometimes swim against the intensions of the designers, and sometimes swim with it.

Setting the Stage
Is it ok to force this mood upon the player?
Or even outside of mood, is it alright to cripple the player to serve some gameplay purpose?
What are the potential negatives and positives to doing this?
Can you think of any other games where your characters abilities were handicapped?

Form Baton-Categorizing Gameplay

Nintendo's Software Planning & Development Division is ready to launch WarioWare: Smooth Moves for the Wii, however, the team faced a difficult hurdle in the games development. As the fifth game in the WarioWare series, the team knew full well exactly what makes a WarioWare title play so uniquely and well. For those who don't know, WarioWare has players completing very specific, seemingly random tasks, at a lightning fast pace. The player only has a moments warning to understand how to solve a microgame before time runs out and their turned to the next game. Its like playing epilepsy.
What the team didn't expect for this iteration of WarioWare, was the challenges presented by the Wii remote. The team came up with many new microgames for WarioWare, but they had trouble figuring out how each game should be controlled, and more importantly, how the player will know what to do when each microgame is presented. The Wii has nigh infinite possiblities in detecting motion, but unspecified solutions to each microgame would prove impossible for a player to complete them. Yoshio Sakamoto, software planner for the team, put the problem like this.

It's true that the Wii Remote allows for any number of ways to play a game, and is especially well matched with the WarioWare series, but because of this players are faced with the new problem of not knowing exactly what they are expected to do. Conveying this information to them posed a problem for us. With WarioWare speed is everything, people have five seconds at most to grasp the way they have to play. How to best communicate this became the first problem we were confronted with.

But later Sakamato would arrive upon a fantastic answer that would solve probably every issue the team was experiencing thus far.

We had a tendency to play it safe, selecting ideas where the player could hold the Remote normally and not be required to perform really tricky movements. Then it happened, a solution presented itself. I thought, why don't we tell the players to: "Hold it like this!" before each of the individual microgames starts. We implemented instructions saying: "Hold the Remote like this" and "Next, hold it like this."

They called it the "Form Baton." And what it does is basically categorize each microgame into one of seven styles of play. The player is told to hold the remote a certain way before each game begins. This way, defeating each microgame becomes a reasonable, if challenging, request upon the player. Here are a couple screenshots from the game, the second one is a demonstration of using the form baton:


The SPDD team came up with a very effective design response to their issue. By categorizing gameplay, or different styles to play each microgame, they could then implement the various control schemes into their many microgames. Plus, the Form Baton adds to the chaos that is WarioWare, forcing the player to go through just one more step each game. The solution may be simple, some might even say contrived, but theres no question that its effective.
What do you think of the Form Baton? What about categorizing gameplay?
What other examples of categorizing gameplay can you think of?
Please post any thoughts you have in the comments.
And thats the day numero two.

Source: Nintendo Europe: Iwata Asks
-Gryffin