Quest to Nowhere

Little Mac vs. Goliath: the Dual Themes of Punch Out

Mike Tyson’s Punch Out, the classic NES game, has a rather clear theme to the core narrative that the player experiences. This theme is that of the underdog, the classic sort of David vs. Goliath theme that someone small can defeat someone that is much larger than them. But it also shares another theme with the David and Goliath tale, which is that intelligence trumps physical strength.

Now what is interesting about the underdog theme of Punch Out, is not so much the theme itself, but rather how the entire presentation of the game is based around reiterating it. Nearly every aspect of the game visually is about making the player feel small, and making the player’s opponents feel larger than life.

This is not just due to the size of Little Mac’s sprite compared to the sprite of the other boxers, but also in the amount of space they are able to move in. The visual language along with the game design decisions for Little Mac’s movement are about making the player feel confined, almost claustrophobically so, in order to make them feel smaller and weaker compared to their opponent.

For example as Little Mac you as the player have very little area to move around in, and very few options for what you can do in that area. Your only defensive moves are to either dodge to one side or the other or block. Visually when you dodge you don’t appear to move very much from where you are normally standing, so even when you dodge a punch it seems as if it is just missing you. If you choose to block, Little Mac puts his hands up to cover and protect his head. This gives him the appearance that he is almost cowering from his opponent.

In comparison the opposing boxers that you are fighting as Little Mac are not only much larger than your character, but they also use a lot more of the screen space. They often have moves that cause them to move around the ring a lot or use a lot of the ring space. This makes them not only more visually impressive, but also adds to the player’s feeling that they are much stronger than their boxer. Especially in comparison to what Little Mac can do.

Now the importance of all of these design choices that are there are to make the player feel like the underdog, which puts it in their mind that they are going to lose. This means that when the player does lose that it isn’t as big of a deal and so it doesn’t feel as punishing, but also makes it so that when the player succeeds in defeating a boxer that the elation and feeling of accomplishment is much higher.

Built on the foundation of this theme is the theme that brains beats brawn. In the story of David vs. Goliath it was David’s use of technology, (aka intelligence,) that defeats the giant warrior. In Punch Out the player doesn’t level up Little Macs stats to make him as strong as the other fighters. The player defeats their opponents by recognizing patterns in how their opponents fight, and finding ways to take advantage of that.

And even if the players themselves are not able to figure out the patterns, they are able to acquire that knowledge from others. Which back when the game came out meant either from one’s friends, or from a gaming magazine, but in either case it showed the power that knowledge has, because even getting a small clue about the way in which one of the boxers fought could make a fight with them much easier.

This version of Punch Out is the only version that is visually set up like this. All of the other games have you seeing the other boxer from the perspective of Little Mac. And the other boxers while still bigger than Little Mac, they are not as unnaturally large as they are in comparison to Little Mac in the NES version of the game.

And while the perspective is a visually interesting one, these other versions of the game don’t have as strong an underdog theme, because Little Mac feels more comparable to the other fighters since they look more like him. This in turn makes the successes less memorable and less enjoyable, while also making the defeats much more frustrating.

Combat Control: How Scores in Combat Systems Can Influence How the Player Fights

After writing the piece about the way in which Bulletstorm’s scoring system can influence a player’s behavior in changing how they approach combat situations by rewarding player trial and error, I started to think about other games and how they might be influencing a player’s behavior in combat through the use of a scoring/combo system. There were three games, (well game series) that specifically came to mind as I thought about this, and while they all have combo systems that reward the player with points to use to improve their character’s abilities, they each implement these systems different. And because of that they cause the player to approach and engage in combat differently in each game.

God of War (series)

God of War’s combat scoring system is pretty simple: the more hits you get in the combo, the more red orbs you get. This orbs act as the game’s experience, and so as you get them you spend them to upgrade your weapons and abilities in the game. This makes them pretty important of course, and is definitely something that as the player you would always want more of.

Now the way this system is setup the player is rewarded for being good at the game (being able to execute long combos,) but is also rewarded for playing the game less efficiently. By which I mean that you are incentivized by the system to attack the enemies with your weakest moves, because it takes more hits to kill them with a weaker move then with a stronger one. 

Additionally because there are a number of sweeping or spinning attacks you can execute in combat, you are also incentivized to let enemies surround you rather than perform any sort of crowd control during combat, or attempt to take out enemies from a distance as they approach you.

Now it seems a bit odd that they are basically trying to get you to play less efficiently with this system, but I think it is likely designed to be like this because God of War’s combat is best in close quarters. Plus those sweeping and spinning attacks are pretty cool looking, and they feel pretty powerful especially when they are hitting a lot of guys.

So I don’t think it’s so much about incentivizing player’s to player the game less efficiently, but rather to get them to engage in combat in the ways that will be most enjoyable to them.

Devil May Cry (series)

Now on the other hand Devil May Cry’s “Stylish Rank” system is about rewarding players for mastering the game’s controls and combat. Like God of War it’s about having long combos where the longer it is the more red orbs you get, but unlike GoW you can’t just perform the same attacks over and over again.

Instead in DMC you have to not only perform these long combos, but you also have to mix different attacks, and increasingly more difficult to perform ones in order to increase the “Stylish Rank Gauge.” Once the combo the player is performing ends the player is given a grade for their performance, and based on their grade they get progressively better rewards.

So here the player is being rewarded not just for having a long combo, but for also demonstrating their mastery of the combat system through their ability to execute a varied of attacks of varying difficulties during a combo. The way this system is designed shows that the designers perhaps saw the fun in their game in the player learning to execute these very difficult moves, and then skillfully demonstrating that. Thus rewarding the hardcore player of the game more than the more casual player.

Batman: Arkham Asylum & Arkham City

The way the combo system is setup in Arkham Asylum and Arkham City is similar to both the God of War system, and the Devil May Cry system, but with a few additions of its own that make it into something else. In AA/AC each enemy is worth a predetermined about of experience points, but by performing a combo the player is able to increase the amount they get by a multiplier. The longer the combo the higher the multiplier, so so far it is a bit like GoW’s system.

However unlike GoW you generally cannot attack more than one enemy in an attack, and so there is a lot of crowd control by keeping the enemies off balance, or far enough away from you, so that you can avoid getting hit and thus breaking the combo.

Now the part that is like DMC is that you are also able to continue the combo, and increase the multiplier, by using some of Batman’s gadgets. This can be fairly difficult to use in combat without breaking the combo, although in AC they made it a little bit easier to do. And in both, but especially AC, as you progressed in the game you encountered enemies that needed to be attacked in a certain way, or with a certain gadget, before they could be comboed into or off of.

This is in line with how DMC’s system was about rewarding players for demonstrating their mastery of the game’s controls by requiring them to do more difficult things. Though in these games it wasn’t necessary for you to be able to quick use the gadgets in order to have long combos, but being able to do made them a little bit easier and on top of that the game rewards you for mixing up the combat, basically making it more difficult.

But unlike DMC and GoW the combo system in AA and AC doesn’t just reward the player with experience. The player is also rewarded with their attacks getting stronger attacks. The addition of this aspect changes the dynamic a bit by keeping it in line with how Batman would fight these enemies, because the way the system is setup you can’t purposely attack weakly to extend the combo. 

There are also special moves that you can only execute after you have gotten a large enough combo, and these moves help with crowd controlling large groups of enemies. This helps to make it easier to extend the combo a bit more in case the player begins to get overwhelmed with enemies.

Bulletstorm’s Scoring System: More Than Just Flashing Numbers

I finally got around to playing Bulletstorm the other day and the thing that struck me about it, which I think probably strikes everyone about it, is the scoring system attached to the “skillshots” you can perform whilst you dispose of the game’s enemies rather indiscriminately. It’s an interesting system that actually seemed to add a good bit of fun to the game, and so I started to wonder about what Bulletstorm would have been like without it.

Initially you may look at the system at face value, that it’s sort of gamifying the game by adding this additional meta layer to it. That it’s playing to the psychology of video game players, and how they respond positively to numbers going up and flashy indications that they are doing things well. Basically that it is doing what social games do to seem engaging and enjoyable for some players, and adapting that a first person shooter to cover up problems in the gameplay.

However you do start off playing the beginning of Bulletstorm without the whole scoring system in place, and from that I think we can discern that it’s likely that the game would still be a fun shooter. It has good mechanics, interesting environments and set pieces, and would probably be a pretty fun and good game even without the system. Which then brings up the questions of what exactly is the whole scoring system there for? What are they trying to get the player to do with this system?

The answer I’ve managed to come up with is that this system is in place not necessarily to reward a player for being good at the game, but rather is there to get the player to think more creatively. By which I mean that because of the system the player is not to just skillfully kill all their enemies by shooting them in the head, but rather encouraged to look at the environment they are fighting and the arsenal of equipment at their disposal, by coming up with interesting and fun ways to use them.

I’ve noticed this in how I approach the gun fights in the game, where I’ll be constantly looking around the environment to pull at enemies, or kick them into. This sometimes causes me to play the game more efficiently, but often causes me to waste my time trying to do something that doesn’t end up working. But I’m not particularly bothered when it doesn’t work, because I am encouraged to try and fail. This is because there is no real punishment for trying to do something and not succeeding, aside from the battle taking a bit longer then it perhaps should have taken.

Additionally there is a great amount of satisfaction when you come up with a silly/interesting use for the weapons, and then manages to not only pull off the actions required, but discover that it was actually one of the “skillshots.” There are few things more satisfying in the game then when the “skillshot” name pops up, and there is a, “new,” tag on it.

Because of this system Bulletstorm has managed to make trial and error gameplay fun, and encouraged players to play through this game in a way that they probably wouldn’t have. This was further supported by the tone of the game, that was in line with the silly/fun arcade style of gameplay, which is reflected in how the characters act, (but that’s probably a whole other post.)

Is the PC the Next Home Game Console?

I wrote the previous blog post about Valve yesterday, (even though I posted it this morning,) and shortly after I wrote it videos started rolling in on Razer’s Project Fiona gaming tablet. Now initially after seeing it I was a bit turned off by it, since it looks a bit silly, it also seems to be trying to fill a need that isn’t there. However after thinking about it, especially thinking about it in the context of the previous blog post, I’m thinking that this thing is potentially brilliant and maybe even game changing.

So considering this Project Fiona, Steam’s Big Picture UI, and even OnLive together, it seems to me that there is a move now to take the Gaming PC from the computer room (study, bedroom, or wherever you keep it,) and move it into the living room. And this makes sense not only as a way to attract more customers to PC gaming by making it easier to purchase and play these games without needing to know a ridiculous amount about computer specs and whatnot. Basically make it easier for the average person to play these games without having to complicate things too much, which is what game console do.

Additionally moving the gaming PC into the living room is not only good for customers, but it’s also good for developers. Not only does it open up a larger potential market for them, but almost more importantly it’s a lot cheaper to release a game on the PC then it is on a console. This is because in order to release a game on a console, let’s say the Xbox 360 for example, you need to purchase a dev kit from Microsoft that will allow you to test and build your game for the console, and this usually costs a good amount of money, especially if you need to have more than one.

On top of that when your game is finished you have to pay a licensing fee to the console manufacturer, in this case Microsoft, for each unit of the game you make. This is where console manufacturers typically make most of their money. Now if you are also selling the game at retail, then there are manufacturing costs that go into printing the discs, the boxes for the discs, and other whatnots. Then of course the retailers have their cut as well, since you aren’t selling them the game at full price.

Now if you sell a game on the PC there are no licensing fees that need to be paid to Microsoft or Apple for making a game on their OS. Also if you are selling the game through your own store the PC (like EA’s Origin,) then the entire sale price of the game is profit, and even if you sell it through something like Steam they typically take something like 30%, which is much less than the amount of money you would lose to manufacturing, licensing, and retail.

So how does Project Fiona fit into this, well I think that it has the potential to be sort of the gateway device to get people into PC gaming. I’m not sure it’s really meant for most gamers, but I think is potentially something that would be attractive to new players who want to give PC gaming a go, but don’t want to spend too much money (they are saying it’s going to be under $1000,) or don’t know what they need to make a gaming PC. Or what is even more likely they don’t have the space or knowledge to setup a new PC.

Although as a core gamer I see it as potentially useful to me as something to take with me to play games when traveling, (not during a commute, but on an airplane or a train as well as at the destination I’m going to.) But I can also see it as being useful for when I want to play a PC game, but still want to stay out in the living room to hang out/social with my roommates.

But again for new customers I see this as the first step, especially if someone can put together a small gaming PC that is designed for these new consumers (especially one that is maybe easily upgradable,) which plugs into the TV in the living room. This one is really the hard part, and it is certainly something people have tried to do in the past and failed at (*cough*Phantom.*cough* ) But it seems that as game consoles begin to become more like PCs, that maybe PCs should become more like consoles.

Is Valve Looking at the ‘Big Picture?’

So I was in the middle of writing a new blog post about how Valve has turned their Steam sales into games, and how that goes along with my previous post about how Steam is a service first and a store second. But then remembered seeing an article saying that Valve had announced that Steam had 100% growth since last year, so I went and read it since I figured there would be some useful information in it to help me support my argument.

It did, but there was a quote in it from Gabe Newell (Valve’s co-founder and president,) that seemed to slip by everyones notice:

“Looking forward, we are preparing for the launch of the Big Picture UI mode, which will allow gamers to experience Steam on large displays and in more rooms of the house.”

It initially slipped my notice as well, since from the sounds of it it seems like they are just making it easier for PC gamer’s to better navigate Steam when they are using very large monitors. Which is a pretty niche group to do something for.

If you really think about this you’ll realize that PC monitors really don’t get that large, at least not large enough to warrant a whole UI update. The only PC “monitors” that get that large are TVs when you hook a PC up to them.

So is Valve just making the UI for home theater PCs? Or are they maybe working on the UI for something else? Like maybe for a console?

I’d like to think so, especially considering how Steam is currently sort of on the PS3. I would really like to see Sony just let Valve handle PSN since they’ve never really managed to do anything with it, but that seems unlikely unless Sony were to buy Valve.

What seems most likely though is perhaps a Valve/Steam branded PC for your living room, which would certainly open up their potential user base beyond just the PC gamers they have now.