Dead Space, Extraction, and the Value of Movement

Hey everyone! Long time, no see. I'm working on graduating this May and, somewhat unfortunately, have chosen to devote my time to things other than writing articles. That is not to say, however, that I've forgone my game playing, research and design. I am now the proud owner of a PlayStation 3 and am every so slowly working my way through Grand Theft Auto IV (finally). I've also been playing through Burnout Paradise, Flower, and MadWorld, not to mention keeping up with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. I'm making some pretty intensive analyses of above games and, in the not to distant future, will have posts here discussing them. I'm also working on a two very interesting discussions of Team Ico's Shadow of the Colossus. On top of playing video games, I am a firm believer in research of video games and game design theory. Naturally, I extensively read articles all over the Internet, but I am also quite enjoying Jesse Schell's The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, lots of wisdom.

That's my update on life. But I want to talk for a brief period about Dead Space and its upcoming Wii incarnation, Extraction. Check out the trailer:

EA is aiming to label Dead Space: Extraction a "guided first person experience." And though the game is essentially an on-rails shooter, I think EA has a right to posit their games as they please. Anyone seeking to innovate, in whatever manner, deserves gold stars in my book. And, based on what we know, I think they are attempting improvements to the genre. The on-rails shooter has a meaty history, including Time Crisis and House of the Dead. I also think many would agree with me that Killer 7 is an on-rails shooter, and an excellent one at that. Wii particularly has received much favor from the light-gun genre. Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles was designed specifically for Wii, but games like Rayman Raving Rabbids, Call of Duty: World at War, and Medal of Honor: Heroes 2 feature specific light-gun modes. While these all may be fine and good, it's starting to get a little out of hand , actually. So when yet another on-rails shooter is announced for Wii, it's easy to say "pshaw" and move on with life (with full motion, zing!), Extraction bears a particularly interesting design.

My initial reaction to Dead Space: Extraction was "lame." I'd basically decided that the genre was of diminishing value and that Extraction was likely a cash-in on Wi''s 50 million units. I've since changed my mind, however. And here's why: Dead Space is perfectly suited to on-rails gameplay. Even more specifically, Dead Space is perfectly suited to on-rails gameplay on Wii.

I've played Dead Space, or rather, the first four chapters on hard mode (before my friend returned it to GameFly; I intend to purchase and finish it this summer). My friends and I actually had a blast playing the game. It is highly polished, quite beautiful, and fun. We would watch each other play, with much back-seat gaming, and weigh the pros and cons of the various weapons and upgrade paths. I do not believe the game was particularly scary, except for the fear of dying and having to restart. Fear and vulnerability is something I've been thinking about a bit and will introduce in another post. But Dead Space is an enjoyable game, and at the least very interesting, and is making a marked transition to Wii.

My cause for reconsideration of Dead Space: Extraction was two-fold: the plasma cutter and the value of movement.

The default gun of Dead Space is the plasma cutter. Because of the limb-dismemberment focus in Dead Space, the plasma cutter is truly the ideal weapon for facing the game's necromorphs. The plasma cutter fires a short line of plasma, the rotation of which can be adjusted with the alternate-fire button to be horizontal or vertical. Skillful employment of the plasma cutter comes down to manipulating the reticule's rotation and, obviously, aiming effectively. Do you see where I'm going with this? In Dead Space: Extraction, rotating or tilting the remote on its side rotates the plasma cutter vertically, as well as serves as the alternate-fire button for every other weapon. There is something extremely tactile about this mirroring of in-game action with real-world control.  It's amazing how such a minor change can have such a massively-damaging impact. Expounding the implementation of this control in Extraction is the other key element to fighting: aiming. Aiming via Wii's sensor-bar has proven to be quite effective thus far, and Dead Space: Extraction is likely to follow suit.

This adaptation of control got me to thinking about other potentialities about Extraction, which ultimately led me to an interesting thought: the value of movement. Dead Space is a third-person shooter and, unlike on-rails shooters, allows for full range of movement in the world. As Isaac, players are free to go where they please within the levels. Additionally, unlike Resident Evil 4 and 5, Isaac can move, albeit slowly, while aiming and firing. Let's examine a few basic reasons players move in the game:

1. To advance in the levels.
2. To pick up items.
3. To maneuver around necromorphs.

Obviously, advancing is an important goal, one achieved via movement. Picking up items may seem trivial but,  while playing the game, I found it to be a pointed aspect. Finally, and most importantly, tactically maneuvering around, and often fleeing from, necromorphs is essential to winning battles. There is a fourth reason for movement: exploring the game. The game's setting, the space craft the USG Ishimura, is a beautiful creation. Exploring and taking time to note its craftsmanship is fun in its own right. Therefore, I would indeed say that movement is, in fact, of value in Dead Space. Its omission would likely be a mistake.

However, given these aspects of the game, exploration, puzzle solving, etc., in terms of challenge, Dead Space boils down to a serious of fights with necromorphs. And of the necromorphs, there are only a few, (slight spoilers perhaps) the standard zombies, the babies, the gorillas, the bat-stomachs, and a couple others. Zombies mob Isaac from all angles, and running to a more optimal firing position, so that the zombies group together, is vital. Gorillas need to be dodged, generally with the help of stasis, and backed-around to hit their exposed butts (line gun ftw). The difficulty of these enemies drastically changes with chosen difficulty setting. To kill a basic zombie, the number of shots to the limbs doubles between medium and hard. The need for maneuvering and/or fleeing the enemy, therefore, scales with difficulty. Even so, aside from the aforementioned, killing necromorphs by and large requires little movement. Aim, flip the reticule, and shoot.

I do not think this is bad. And, again, maneuvering around enemies is an important part of gameplay. But most of the player's time in combat will be spent shooting, standing still, not running around. This is to the game's benefit. With the camera, and with the the transition between aiming (bringing up your weapon) and moving (putting down the weapon), switching between the two too often would be tiring. I'm not saying that Dead Space is exclusively aiming and shooting, I'm saying that aiming and shooting is what Dead Space does best, and what it primarily features.

Dead Space: Extraction, though potentially perceived as a nerfed rendition of its big brother, is designed specifically to Wii. Wii has less power than the other consoles, it's fact; Dead Space in its original form could not run on Wii. So necessity calls for change, either in the form of significantly reduced polygons and enemies, or, better, via a complete overhaul. Dead Space: Extraction removes free movement (though it will reportedly allow for branching paths). We don't know enough yet to say whether players advance forward automatically point-to-point or move gradually on a line, ala Killer 7, but the limited movement will work well, I believe.

"Strategic Dismemberment" was a tag line for Dead Space, and rightly so, because it is certainly a high-point of gameplay. What EA is doing with Extraction, under the limitations of a less-powerful system, is to highlight the qualities of Dead Space and not offer movement for movement's sake. The phrase "a guided first person experience" is apt. Extraction looks to do offer all of the original's best aspects, and just maybe, improve upon them. From first-person, yes, with limited movement, yes, but Extraction retains what matters most: the challenge of properly dismembering limbs.

As I said before, light gun games are a proven genre; they're fun. Dead Space works so blatantly well as a light gun game, it's amazing nobody thought of it sooner. Dismembering limbs is the new head-shot. And within the confines of the genre, lack of movement loses nothing; indeed, controlled play, limitation of movement and options, may enhance the game. It's like tree sap. 97% of sap is water. By boiling down the sap, we are able to procure the sweetest 3%, the wondrous maple syrup.

Movement in Metal Gear Solid 4

Metal Gear Solid is one of the greatest game series' ever. Guns of the Patriots is the fourth and final entry in the tactical espionage action epic. As always, this latest Metal Gear is being directed by Hideo Kojima and his team at Kojima Productions.

Guns of the Patriots holds makes many changes and additions to the Metal Gear formula. One area I want to talk about in specific is movement. Compared to many other games, Snake has always had pretty limited options for movement. He can run, crouch, roll, roll into prone, and crawl. He can also lean against and sidle along walls. Later Metal Gear titles added the ability to hang off ledges and climb trees, amongst other movements. However, MGS4 offers without question the most diverse move set of any Metal Gear title yet. While this may immediately be met with much applause, it is very important to remember that Guns of the Patriots remain Metal Gear at heart.

"Do a Barrel Roll!"

Movement style is a signature of the franchise. As a series that helped to create and define the stealth genre, MGS4 must retain the heart and soul of the series, and not deviate too far from what makes it Metal Gear. To clarify, movement has always been a pivotal aspect of Metal Gear Solid. There's a reason Snake moves the way he does: his movement compliments the rest of the game. Metal Gear would be quite the different game if Solid Snake could move like Ryu Hayabua. Thats why its of paramount importance that Snake's movement repertoire doesn't compromise the feel of the game.

Kojima clearly wanted to expand Snake's move set, but at the same time, diversifying movement too much may sacrifice the feeling of a Metal Gear game. The key? balance.

Yay Crouch-Run!

Now let's talk about Snake's expanded range of movement. Or at least what we know of it. Everything I'll be discussing can be found in the newest MGS4 Gameplay Trailer.

Snake's New Moves:

• Snake can now crouch walk. Previously, Snake was only able to crouch while staying still or sidling along a wall. Now, Snake can crouch and walk at the same time, much like Sam Fisher of the Splinter Cell series.

• Snake can roll. Along with the traditional crawling, Snake can roll over left or right. This opens up another movement option.
  

• Now Snake can lie on his back. This allows Snake to crawl backward on his back. He can now also aim and shoot in FPS mode while lying on his back.

• Snake can now also lie very flat on his stomach. This allows him to play dead. It also allows Snake to very slowly, very.....slowly crawl forward. Like slithering. Its actually pretty sweet.

• Snake can hang off of edges, just like usual. But now he sort of hand stands then flips onto an edge. This seems thus far to be more of an aesthetic effect than anything else. But its still awesome. Also, notice how when Snake drops from the edge he uses has the same falling animation as always. Classic.
  

• The box of yore returns. Now also in drum can form. This proves to be a more resilient shield to bullets, and also allows Snake to roll over ground into enemies.
  

Lots of additions. But is it still Metal Gear? I would argue, yes. In my opinion, Kojima has expanded Snake's move set without losing the Metal Gear feel. Rolling makes moving around of the ground alot easier, and more realistic. Crawling forward slowly allows for less chance of detection. crawling at all in Snake Eater was almost certain to alert the enemy to Snake's presence. Being able shoot while on your back gives Snake a larger radius of attack. Before, it was necessary to look from first-person, swing the camera around, and then start shooting. Now players can just roll over and shoot away. The drum can is yet another weapon in Snake's arsenal. In past Metal Gear's, players were defenseless when cooped up inside a cardboard box. Now they can roll on through the enemy if threatened.

Back crawl into over-head grenade throw.

Most important to all of this is how Snake's new move set compliments his new battlefield. Snake is now in the middle of a war. An environment that is constantly shifting. Snake needs more mobility to cope with this faster-paced environment. Being relegated to his old move set probably wouldn't be enough to survive in Snake's new jungle. I'm positive Kojima was aware of this. Kojima designed a whole game. Not just a new move set. The environment needed to be considered along with Snake's movement. Everything must be designed cooperatively. Ingenious.

And now for something completely different. From the makers of the newer Appleseed comes Vexille.

Hell, It's About Time

I want to apologize for the lack of updates as of late. I've had finals these past two weeks and couldn't take time to post with all of my other obligations. But now, I'm free as a bird. I will be working a full time job all summer, so most posts will come at night.

Anyway, back to game design. Yay!

You may have noticed that Starcraft II was announced saturday. The originial Starcraft is my favorite RTS and I really couldn't be more excited for the sequel. Blizzard is approaching the design of Starcraft II cautiously, knowing full well the popularity of its prequel. Their goal is two-fold: retain the significance and uniqueness of Starcraft's play style while also improving upon and adding to the game's design. What this means specifically is that Blizzard is not making Warcraft III with a Starcraft skin. There are several primary differences between Blizzard's more recent RTS and their 1998 space-opus. As this GameSpot report points out, Warcraft III is focused on micro-managing big battles whereas Starcraft was more about economic build-up and mass-army control. Blizzard wants to bring this RTS design into Starcraft II. Additionally, they are apparently very focused on creating a counter system, where each unit has another unit, unit-type or ability they are specifically weak against. I think its fantastic that Blizzard isn't just making Warcraft IV in disguise. They are trying to create a genuine sequel that sticks to the greatness of the original Starcraft.However, they are bringing in several new features that have been developed since Starcraft. One in particular I would like to bring to your attention is a newfound revolution around elevation and unit movement. Blizzard has only shown a very small slice of the inevitable mass that is Starcraft II. But we can already see some common threads woven through out the game's design. The environment is now a much bigger factor in than it was in Starcraft. First, units are no long revealed when attacking from without fog of war. In the original Starcraft, enemy units would be shown, and therefore vulnerable, when attacking from a higher position. Now, units may attack from a height above their foe, and remain hidden while doing so, while also mainting advantages in both attack and defense. Almost every revealed unit thus far takes advantage of this adjustment.

I highly recommend checking out SonsOfTheStorm

The Colossus is a new Protoss unit that looks very similar to the alien ships in the newest War of the Worlds. The unit walks on four legs and shoots laser beams on enemies far below its bird's nest. Starcraft has multiple levels of terrain that are normally connected by ramps. Of course, there are also walls and platforms. The Colossus is easily able to walk over terrain dips and rises, thanks to its long legs. While this is only speculation, the unit may also be able to walk across smaller buildings, like bunkers or photon cannons. Anoter Protoss unit, the Stalker, has been given the blink ability seen with the warden form Warcraft III. The Stalker is a newer, dark templar version of the dragoon from the original Starcraft. Blink allows the Stalker to instantly teleport anywhere within its range of vision, including over walls and valleys. Last, the Reaper is a new Marine-light unit for the Terran. The unit wields dual-pistols and sports a jetpack. This allows it to hop over and down walls with ease, much like a grasshopper.

Ah....the Zerg Rush. Classic.

Of course there are and are bound to be many units that cannot simply jump across levels of terrain. This gives those that can a distinct advantage, at least in terms of mobility. But what these units have in movement skill they may lack in other areas, such as defense. Its interesting. Blizzard has presented themselves with something, elevation levels, and then created a solution, units that can overcome the elevation difference. Were these two facets designed to complement one another? Elevation is very important in Starcraft, and obviously is so in Starcraft II as well. I think that Blizzard wanted to create solutions for players to get across terrain easily. This seemingly small change is going to destroy so many strategies from the original game, while also opening many new ones. I like what Blizzard is doing with Starcraft II, what do you think?

Zerg Rush It
Do you think that Blizzard's focus on elevation is a mistake? Why or why not?
Do you think their should be a focus on micro-manegement as opposed to mass army control?


this public service announcement brought to you in part by free time.