That VideoGame Blog

Starting today, I will be contributing some writing to That VideoGame Blog. They had a link on their site advertising they were looking for some writers to volunteer to write for the site. This includes writing up news reports, more in-depth articles, or whatever. I'm pretty excited about it, and it should be fun. The only thing I'm worried about, which shouldn't be too hard, is eventually trying to keep my posts over there and here on my own blog separate. At any rate, check out the site. It's very clean and well made, and I look forward to contributing there.

Providing Meaningful Choices in Games

There's a lot of talk in the gaming industry and gaming press about providing meaningful choices to players that drastically affect their gameplay experience. But despite that, I can think of very few examples where this has been implemented. Most choices in games are superficial, and you follow the same path no matter what you choose. While choosing to save or harvest the Little Sisters in Bioshock was a moral challenge for many people, it ultimately was not a game-changing decision. Assassin's Creed provides several methods of getting information about your next target, but you repeat these same few scenarios over and over. Designers let players choose different characters, items, weapons, and lines of dialogue, not to mention countless visual options for your character's appearance. Many choices presented in games today are merely illusory.


The best example of a game I've played with meaningful choices is Planescape: Torment. It requires a lot of reading, possibly having the most dialogue of any game I've ever played. Most of your choices involve your character having a high enough intelligence to be able to choose a dialogue option that elicits information from an NPC. Surprisingly, this even applied to the final boss battle, where it was possible to talk your way past him. Should choices block off elements of the plot or gameplay so you can't experience everything in one playthrough? It seems like it. Otherwise, what's the point of making a difficult decision if you can see both outcomes regardless? I suppose these sorts of complications are why so few games provide the player with legitimate choices.


Another game with a different kind of choice is Riviera: The Promised Land, a little gem I picked up not too long ago for the GBA. While your decisions don't affect the plot greatly, they are directly tied to your ability to succeed in battle. They also affect which of your female companions is most affectionate towards you at the end of the game. Quickly and pwerfully winning a battle earns you Trigger Points, which can be spent to explore the environment. If you don't do well in battles, you won't earn enough Trigger Points to be able to examine everything, and you'll miss out on valuable items and experience. At the same time, your female companions also give you advice and warnings, and you can choose whether or not to listen to them. As an example, I once searched a bush, and received an item. On the next screen, I tried to examine an identical-looking bush, but another character warned that it looked thorny and dangerous. I chose to follow her advice, and don't know what would have happened if I had ignored her. Although you must use your Trigger Points wisely, they ultimately only provide you with better items and weapons.


Are game-changing choices really needed? They would make for a more dynamic, personal experience. But I also love following a gripping game story through to a logical conclusion. If the gameplay is flawless, I don't even think about a lack of true choices. It's very difficult to make the player feel as if they are impacting the game world. But it looks like an increasing number of developers are going to try.

"Shut-up Already - I Know You Want a New Computer!"

I always know I'm excited about something because my girlfriend gets annoyed at me for telling her the same thing over and over again. Right now, I've been repeatedly telling her the following: I want to get a new gaming-capable computer as a compromise for not having a 360 or a PS3. My desire for a graphically-advanced gaming machine has stemmed largely from my renewed interest in maintaining this gaming blog. It made me realize the vast number of games I'm missing out on by only owning a Wii. I do like the idea of limiting myself to only one console because I just don't have the time to play every worthwhile game that's out there. That being said, I'm starting to get the itch to play games I've so far missed out on.

As companies, I have a distrust and dislike of both Sony and Microsoft. The extremely high cost of a PS3 turns me off, and I'm wary of the 360's unknown but seemingly high failure rate. Although the recent announcement of a Metal Gear Solid 4 PS3 bundle sent a shiver of excitement down my spine. As a compromise, I'm going to get a decent gaming PC. I also need a new PC in itself, because my nearly 6 year old laptop is ready to fall apart. So when computer shopping, I'm going to make sure to include a good graphics card, processor, and plenty of RAM.

I think a PC will be a good compromise because many of the console games I want to play also appear on PC, especially 360 games. Right now my list of games includes Bioshock, Half-Life and The Orange Box, the soon-to-be-released Mass Effect, and both Knights of the Old Republic games. I've done a little research online and am very excited at the prospect of a new computer. But I need to calm down because I won't be buying it until I leave Japan in about 5 months. So what game systems do you have, and how did you justify your decisions?

Difficulty in Games: Too Hard, Too Easy, or Just Right?

Whether or not adventure games are dead, they can sometimes be about as challenging as driving with your eyes closed. After just a couple of hours of Grim Fandango, I found myself stuck and bewildered. Early in the game, Manny finds himself in the Petrified Forest. I knew exactly what to do to get out, but I had no idea how to advance. I needed to figure out a maze, unbalance a pumping station to get hydraulics for my car, and eliminate some demon beavers near the exit. I'm not going to lie, I resorted to searching for hints online to help solve two of the three puzzles. And the last one was solved by my girlfriend. Petrified Forest - 3, Me - 0. I've since moved on, and am having greater success in the second section.

The larger issue here is that of game difficulty and time commitments. Have games become easier over time? I'm not sure if I know. Game design has changed drastically since the arcade or NES days, where you were expected to not only die, but die repeatedly. One of the biggest changes recently has been increasing the frequency of save points, and/or allowing you to restart shortly before your character died rather than at the beginning of a level. We see fewer and fewer games that increase difficulty by limiting where you can save. Will we ever see another game like Final Fantasy III for the DS, where you can never save in dungeons or buy revival items? Probably not. Even Fire Emblem, that bastion of permanent character death and denier of mid-mission saving, allowed players to save mid-battle in the newest release, thereby somewhat changing your strategy.

Is a decrease in difficulty in games in general partly responsible for the decline of adventure games? I remember being confounded by Myst for weeks on end. I got stuck on Grim Fandango after about 2 hours, and it's supposed to be comparatively easier. Granted, adventure games may just require a different state of mind than what I'm used to. Nonetheless, I still love playing adventure games and thinking about their mysteries. I especially love that I can get stuck in an adventure game, and then think about it constantly, trying to think of possible solutions until I begin playing again.

The reason I sneaked a peek online for Grim Fandango tips is that I felt I was wasting my time. My gaming time has decreased greatly over the years. Repeatedly trying to solve a puzzle and making no headway is too frustrating, when I could be making progress in other games. So I got a little nudge in the right direction, and am grateful for it. Similarly, if I find myself restarting a Fire Emblem mission several times, I give up and switch to another game temporarily because it feels like lost time.

I wonder if as other gamers of my generation grow older and have more responsibilities, their game time becomes more valuable to them. Personally, I don't want to play too many really difficult games because the time investment it takes to become proficient is too high for me. Of course, I don't want a cakewalk either, but I'd like to be able to make steady progress. I know that there's a place for challenging games like Devil May Cry 3 and Ninja Gaiden, and I'd like to see even more of a resurgence of adventure games. But I don't want to have to attempt the same scenario a dozen times with no results. I just don't have the time anymore.

Changes, Changes

As you've probably noticed, I've been messing around with the layout of the blog, trying to find a simpler, better looking template. I also want to try to make some decent headers, but I'm new to both bloggin and picture editing, so it will probably take a will. I think I'll be changing the look of the site quite a few times over the next week. If anyone has any good ideas or tips for making a header, I'd love to know.

The Emulation and Digital Distribution of Video Games

I've been catching up on podcasts from BrainyGamer.com, in which he was talking about how he doesn’t emulate older games on his computer much any more. This piqued my interest because I semi-regularly emulate NES, SNES, and Game Boy titles on my laptop because I feel like I have gaping holes in my gaming experience from when I was younger. For games that are 15 or 20 years old, it’s much easier to emulate them. It’s also much cheaper. Some classic, rare games are quite expensive today. For example, a game like Chrono Trigger currently goes for $50 or more on eBay, and that’s more than I’m willing to spend on most older games at this point in my life.

That being said, I know that emulation is both illegal and a form of stealing. If possible, I would choose to buy a classic game at a reasonable price and support the company that made it. But video game stores in the U.S. rarely have old used games. They limit themselves to the current and previous generation of games because of higher profitability. For two decade old games that aren’t in production anymore, 100% of the profit goes to the retailer, not the developer. The only recourse to find most used games is the Internet, which has its own issues of buying used merchandise sight unseen.

Emulation also sometimes leads to compatibility issues, and it’s often more fun to play a game with the physical controller and system it was designed for. The GBA game Riviera: The Promised Land provides a good example of how emulation isn’t preferable just because it’s free. Riviera is an RPG, but it tries to keep the player on their toes by having regular action scenes that require you to input a sequence of button presses within a time limit. Whether the outcome is beneficial or harmful is determined by your skill. I bought this game around Christmas, and the response time for inputting the commands is quick and seamless. But prior to this, I had emulated the game, and I found that neither the keyboard nor a PC gamepad were adequate for these sequences. I regularly made mistakes, and my characters would take damage or miss important items. Riviera is infinitely more smooth and enjoyable on an actual GBA.

Despite problems with emulation, I’m eagerly anticipating the future expansion of digital distribution, not just of games, but of all media. I’ve spent 5,000 yen (a little less than $50) on Virtual Console games on my Japanese Wii. If I had an American Wii, I probably would have spent more. Several classic games I want to play are already on the Wii, and more arrive every week.

What intrigues me, though, is what programs like the Virtual Console will look like in 10 years. Most of the best old Nintendo games will be on the Virtual Console at some point in the future. What then? Will the service be over? I suppose the upcoming WiiWare will provide additional original content. More importantly, what will happen to the Virtual Console when Nintendo releases its eventual successor to the Wii? Maybe we’ll be able to transfer our games to the new system. Or they could try to cash in some more, develop a new and improved download service, and release updated versions of their best games yet again. I fully want to support legal purchases of emulated games. But this is still a relatively new enterprise, so there are a lot of questions for the future without clear answers.

Here’s my ideal scenario: Someday, every single game from previous generations will be available for purchase and download. That kind of world sounds quite nice, and I won’t have to feel guilty about downloading and emulating games illegally. Until that day, I’ll continue my current emulation practices and buy what I can as it becomes available. I greatly prefer legitimate copies of games to illegally emulated ones. I’ve downloaded many games onto my PC, but as these games become available on the Virtual Console or I happen to find a good deal online, I’ll often go ahead and purchase them, deleting the version on my computer. I dabbled in Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones last year, but bought it in a store without hesitating. I played most of Super Metroid on my computer, but bought it on the Virtual Console the day it was released. Not only do these games play better than the emulated versions, but they make me feel a little better inside, too.

Turning the Tables in Tales of Symphonia

IGN has just put up a preview of Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World, a direct sequel to the Gamecube RPG. What caught my eye was this brief description of what's been revealed of the plot. "One day Emil hears a calling and follows it into the mountains, where he meets Marta Lualdi, a 15-year-old tomboy whose mother was also killed in the unification of the two worlds. In a surprise twist, the characters learn that it was Lloyd Irving who was indirectly responsible for the deaths of their loved ones."

Lloyd was the protagonist of the previous game, and I most often chose as my primary character. What's interesting to me is that the two main characters want to hunt down Lloyd, the hero of the first game, possibly for revenge but definitely for answers. I have yet to personally play a game that switches character roles like this, and you are forced to view the hero you once identified with as the antagonist, at least temporarily. I have a strong feeling there won't be a deadly confrontation between Lloyd, Emil, and Marta, but one can always hope.

The only game I know of that does a similar perspective shift is Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, which Stephen Totilo wrote about at the MTV Multiplayer blog. He even compares the "moral quandaries" of Radiant Dawn to the critics' darling Bioshock. In the strategy game, you basically spend several hours leveling up a certain group of characters. Later, you are in control of the heroes from the previous Fire Emblem game, but your enemies have become the characters you just finished helping and getting to know. That's quite a surprise, and I wish I didn't know about it, because I would like to play both of those games someday. Luckily, if you just wait out a couple of missions, you can combine those two forces without losing any characters.

This perspective shift could work really well to surprise gamers, and deny their expectations about what might happen, particularly in a game typical of its own genre. I hope more developers follow these two examples, and take these changes even further.

The Future of Independent Games on Consoles

What are independent games? I would say indie games are characterized by small budgets, small development teams, and often feature experimentation with or development of unique and innovative gameplay methods. The developers of indie games could be anyone from a ten person team at a small development studio to a single person working on a game in their parents’ basement after school. Just as independent films rose to prominence in the early and mid-90s, so are indie games currently on a meteoric rise in both popularity and feasibility. Indie games have been around for years on PCs, but it’s only with the current generation of consoles that it’s been possible for a wide variety of independent games to be created on home consoles on a larger scale. The Game Developer’s Conference (GDC) this week has revealed more information about both Nintendo’s WiiWare and Microsoft’s XNA services. These details made me start thinking about the further evolution of indie console games.

The Wii, PS3, and 360 have all had downloadable content available for a while now. The Wii’s Virtual Console consists entirely of ports of old games, while the PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Arcade are also used for original projects. The ability of these consoles to connect to the Internet and allow downloadable content is the biggest reason indie games can begin to expand on consoles. It’s a lot cheaper to digitally distribute games than to make physical disks and packaging.

Nintendo should have around 100 games stockpiled for the launch of WiiWare on May 12, but they will slowly emerge on a weekly schedule according to Nintendo’s baffling logic, much like the Virtual Console. Although pricing is unknown, I’m sure some games will be bargains and others will be a sickening waste of money, also like the Virtual Console. At first, people thought only small teams from big, licensed developers can release games. But it turns out any developer can work on WiiWare games. Nonetheless, there are still significant costs associated with this approach.

XNA, however, sounds a lot more invigorating. My pedestrian understanding of XNA is that it’s a set of development tools designed for easy use that anyone can freely use. Microsoft hopes both independent developers and members of the Xbox community utilize it. With a peer review process of approval, this system is really in the hands of the community much more so than WiiWare. This sounds like a potentially good way for anyone with a good idea and a little talent to get their name out there and profit a little bit.

The PC has more room for small, individual game creators, and is much more open than consoles. Andy Baio on Waxy.org, as posted on GameSetWatch, summed up my thoughts nicely. He talks about the dominance of middle-men on consoles.

“In the web industry, there’s nobody controlling distribution and I don’t need anyone’s authorization to launch a new project. But the gaming industry is dominated by gatekeepers.

For consoles, you can pay through the nose for the privilege to be on Xbox Live Arcade, PlayStation Network or the upcoming WiiWare, and then wait months to be released into the pipeline. On PCs, there’s no clear monopoly, with distribution fragmented between a handful of game download portals and distribution frameworks like Steam.

Or you can go it alone and sell directly to your fans through your own web presence but, for the moment, this is very rare.”

While WiiWare is just a way for companies to make small games with lower production costs, XNA seems to be more open and allow more freedom for those outside the game industry. I’d like to think this is the future, where people with few corporate constraints are able to not only experiment, but also be rewarded for trying to change things. Of course, with more people able to develop and publish games, there will also be a proportionately greater volume of rubbish. Independent games are not necessarily worth your time, just more likely to be a little different.

Killing Dragons: A Significant Accomplishment

I finally did it. Fire Emblem is complete (the first GBA one). Or at least as complete as it will probably be for a long time. To more fully complete it, I should play the second mode, which has most of the same missions, a different main character, some extra missions, and a slightly higher difficulty. But I don't have the time or energy for that right now. I'd rather play something new. Fire Emblem only took about three years, why should I dive right back into it? My save file clocked in at around 42 hours, but I could add on another 10 hours or so for mission restarts, and about 15 hours when I felt like restarting the entire game after a long break. It's probably more like 70 hours of play time. I think I'm starting to reach a point in my life where that kind of time investment for one game is unfeasible, as work and other responsibilities come to greater prominence.

Was Fire Emblem worth it? Absolutely. It's one of my favorite GBA games. But there are a couple reasons it took me so long to complete, both in gameplay time and real world time. The first reason has to do with my nature as a gamer. I'm very meticulous, and want to find every secret I can in a game. So I would try to recruit all the characters, find secret items, do all the side missions, and avoid any character deaths. I also tend to be a very careful planner, so strategy games take me somewhat longer than average to complete. For some of the 30+ missions, I may have spent almost as much time planning and optimally equipping my characters as I did playing the actual level.

The second reason my time investment was so high has to do with the nature of the game itself. As a strategy game, each chapter requires careful planning to maximize your resources and take the best units into battle. A small preparatory mistake can be very costly once the fighting starts. Except for the simply, early chapters, each mission is quite long, often taking an hour or more to complete, not including restarts. What I find a little strange, though, is how at odds this type of game is with the actual GBA itself. The GBA is designed for short, quick bursts of gameplay on the go, and it's possible to do that with Fire Emblem. It saves your game automatically after every single character action. But I rarely stopped in the middle of a mission, because I wanted to keep my attention of the flow of battle. So you can play Fire Emblem a few moves at a time on a train or on the toilet, but it doesn't really provide the same kind of tactical experience. Part of the reason it took me so long is I needed to devote a significant chunk of time to attempt a single mission. After several long missions played over a couple of weeks, I would just get burned out on it for a while and want to play a different kind of game.

This being said, Fire Emblem was incredibly enjoyable. I've already started the sequel, The Sacred Stones, although I don't plan on doing more than three or four missions because I need a break from this kind of game. I've got too many other games that need attention before I dive into another Fire Emblem game.

Impressions of Grim Fandango

A highly sought after but rarely achieved goal for game designers is crafting a unique visual, aural, and even interactive style. The most prominent game of recent months that comes to mind is Bioshock, with its under–the–sea, failed utopia, art–deco style permeating every drop of its being. I’ve recently been researching PC adventure games from the 1990s, specifically the ones made by LucasArts. As always happens to me, I’ve now added about six of their adventure games to my ever–growing mental list of games I need to play. Of these adventure games, the one I’m initially most interested in is Grim Fandango, which I’ve just started playing. After a couple hours, its sense of style, unique identity and polish are simply beautiful.

Grim Fandango was one of LucasArts’ last big adventure games, released in 1998. It was a little more graphically advanced than their previous adventures, primarily in that it abandoned the SCUMM engine they had been using for years and switched to 3D character models on a static background. They also abandoned mouse control in favor of pure keyboard, joystick, or gamepad support. But what is most noticeable, and refreshing, is Grim Fandango’s consistent graphical atmosphere.

The world of Grim Fandango is based on the Aztec belief that when someone dies, they must go on a four year journey to their final afterlife destination. So the dead were buried with food, money, and even pets, anything that might be useful on their journey. Once a year, on the Day of the Dead, the spirits are allowed back into the living world, and the living honor the dead through parties, festivals, and skeleton–like dolls called calaveras. In fact, in the game world you play as Manuel “Manny” Calavera. He’s a travel agent selling packages to the dead to shorten their four year journey.

All the characters are modeled after these calavera dolls, which simply resemble skeletons. Imagine a typical skeleton, but wearing 1930’s style clothes and you have the general idea. What I find amazing is how LucasArts gave the characters so much emotion, even though they basically just have four black holes representing eyes, a nose, and a mouth. But that’s all they need. It’s almost a minimalist style of character presentation. It reminds me of the recent Lego Star Wars games, where the characters are simple Lego models that must convey their thoughts solely through facial expressions. Grim Fandango is similar, but elongate the heads and take away some of the facial detail. Extremely talented voice actors also help immerse you in the experience. If more games had such a talented, believable voice cast, we’d all be better off for it. Make sure you don’t switch from voice to text just to speed up the game. I’ve been selecting every dialogue option just to hear the character’s wonderful banter.

Besides the unique characters, the game takes place in a 1930s art–deco world a full decade before Bioshock. The beautiful colors, art direction, and furnishings really complement the noir–style detective story you’re presented with. From what I’ve read about it, the game takes place over four years, each time on the Day of the Dead. So I’m expecting plenty of lively environments beyond the initial city. Manny also occasionally has to go into the world of the living to do some reaping to get his clients. The living world is charmingly presented as a Picasso–style cubist painting, complete with blocky, disproportionate human features. I’ve never seen anything like it in a game before.

The only disappointment so far is technical: the dialogue during cutscenes isn’t playing correctly on my computer. It sounds like the dialogue plays twice, but slightly out of synch. On the other hand, my girlfriend has expressed what could be a brief interest in this game. She’s mostly intrigued because it’s an adventure game, and she remembers a brief foray into Monkey Island as a child. Hopefully, I’ll post more impressions when I finish the game, but so far it looks very promising.

EDIT: After a brief search online, I found and implemented a solution to the cutscene problem. I guess there are frequent problems with running older games on modern, faster computers.