Gravity Swords

I played some Halo 3 with my friend yesterday and he enlightened me to a spectacular game known only as "Gravity Swords." But gravity hammers versus swords is the not what the title implies. Rather, Gravity Swords is like playing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It's awesome. Everything else is best left for first-hand experience.

How to play Gravity Swords
Go to Custom Games
Set the game mode to Swords
Set the gravity to 50%
Set the movement speed to 300%
Choose Valhalla as the level

Experience the beauty of Gravity Swords.
Let me know what you think.

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,

Halo Wars: My Opinion

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

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

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

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

Designing to a System: FPS Ports

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

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

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

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

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

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

Halo Wars: Staying True

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

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

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


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

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


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