How Town of Salem made a mechanic interesting

Town of Salem is a cool game. I just wanted to get it out of the way right now. It's free in browser, give it a shot, you'll have a good time. If you're at all interested in what I'm talking about here, I'm sure you'll have a good time.

Source

But it's also really interesting to look at what makes this seemingly simple game tick, and how something as simple as being immune to death at night adds layers upon layers of complexity. If you've ever played mafia, ToS is basically like that, but a bit more complex, taking advantage of it being digital, and having more roles.

Now, being night immune is a trait shared by several roles in the game, such as the serial killer and the godfather. If you haven't played or if your memory is fuzzy, it means you can't be killed at night through conventional means. That means no mafia killing you, no serial killer, and no vigilante. Let's take a closer look at what this means for the game as a whole:

It increases the value of certain roles

There are specific roles that can kill through night immunity. The Jailor, Veteran, Werewolf, and Arsonist all have the ability to ignore this attribute and just kill anyone they want at night. Obviously that's a powerful tool for whatever role has it, but it's not without downsides. The jailor is obscenely powerful, but to compensate they're always in the game and are the number one target for pretty much every killing role. The veteran can't actively kill, and can only react to other night immune roles coming to visit them. And of course the arsonist and werewolf are alone, and can't risk being found out or killed or else they lose.

When you give a role such a powerful tool, you're forced to give them downsides, and in doing so each role is just really interesting. You need to play more carefully as a jailor. It's common to try to bait people to visit you as veteran. This mechanic changes every role it applies to, and it makes the game much more interesting as a result.

It's a key strength AND weakness

Night immunity just sounds like a straight strength, no? It certainly is a necessary one for many of the independent roles. The neutral killing roles, for one, are a target of literally every other player in the game, and your "team" is made up of only yourself in this case. It'd be far too easy for you to automatically lose by a random killing if you didn't have night immunity in this case. The town can rely on their numbers, the mafia can afford a loss, vampires can make more of themselves, and so on. Every role has some sort of failsafe, and in the case of these solo roles their failsafe is just flat out being unable to be normally killed.

However, this isn't just a flat buff in these evil roles. Again, it makes the game more interesting, because the party that tried to attack you will know you're night immune. And that's pretty much always a bad thing. If you're neutral killing, mafia and town both want your blood and will out you the next day or in a death note. If you're the godfather, everyone but mafia wants you gone. In these cases, it means you've been put at a disadvantage but still have several options to get out of this mess, rather than just an instant failsafe.

And it's not as simple as "lynch the immune" for the town roles, either. The survivor and bodyguard both have the ability to assume temporary night immunity, so they can't just go about lynching everyone like this.

This is really, really good multiplayer design. I often see a lot of games stumble in providing interesting options on all sides. Take a sniper rifle in any FPS. Typically your options boil down to "get out of sight or die" and the sniper's options are "keep at range or die". It's just not as interesting when each weapon or mechanic gives a very binary state: play this way or fail. Town of Salem keeps it open, even when something bad or good happens to you. Getting found out as night immune isn't an immediate failure, and finding a night immune isn't an instant success. As a result of this it's also not a straight, boring buff to a class to help it work. It's a dynamic mechanic that helps them do their jobs.

It also works as an unknown

Night immunity is always going to be present in a typical game of ranked. The godfather and a neutral killing role will always be in there, so the killing roles will always have this mechanic to work with. That uncertainty means that night immunity is something every role will want to know about for different reasons.

The mafia will usually want to know who's immune so as to not waste nights to kill, and seeing as they're the only factions guaranteed to have someone able to confirm of someone is immune, it's often in their best interests to reveal who's immune through indirect means. It's a question of risk vs reward, typically. Is it in the mafia's best interest to leave roles that can usually kill them alive to see if they'll get the town first. That question doesn't have a clear answer and must be answered per game, and that's great.

On the other hand, every role with permanent night immunity is an enemy of the town, and a massive red flag that this is likely a bad person. It becomes a goal of leveraging every piece of info you get and then putting it into action, as town usually takes control of the lynchings. If it's not coming from the mouth of an investigative role or vigilante, however, it's typically suspect. This turns the simple act of trying to find the evils into a mad scramble to see who can be trusted and what info is good and it's just great.

The point I'm getting at here is that Town of Salem weaves this one gameplay mechanic through the entire game very well. So many multiplayer games keep mechanics isolated and single use. You can only use the grappling hook for mobility. This shotgun only has one use: close range combat. The mechanic of night immunity is not a one and done mechanic only applying to certain scenarios. It's used across the entire game and has repercussions far more than it appears at first. Not every game needs to do something like this, but it's certainly a valuable tool to keep in mind.

How Far Cry 2 Made War Boring

Hey, I don't hate Far Cry! Just bad stories ;)

In my last article, I expressed disappointment with Far Cry 3's inability to make the story and gameplay work together, and it ended up being a fun game with a story that just doesn't work with the gameplay. This is very often the norm in video games, however. You'll get a dramatic cutscene about how this is a life and death scenario, and then you'll take 30 bullets to the face and not die. However, the reason I took such issue with Far Cry 3 in particular was that this series had already gotten it right.

But before that, just a quick disclaimer: please play Far Cry 2 first. If I tell you what it's all about the effect will be ruined. Just go in blind and you'll get it. Maybe.

Source

Far Cry 2 is an anti-war game to it's very core. Everything from the story to the gameplay is perfectly in tune with what it wants to do, in stark contrast to Far Cry 3. This is pretty much the best execution of an anti-war message I have ever seen. It doesn't make any grandiose statements. It just is, and it's a hell of a thing.

Far Cry 2 is all about war. From the moment you start the game you hear about war. You're shot at 5 minutes in. You can't go more than a few meters between soldiers. The region's very identity has been erased and replaced by war. It's all you do in gameplay, it's what all the missions are about, you cannot escape war.

Already we can see that it's doing much better than Far Cry 3. That game is unable to reconcile the difference between the player and story, constantly talking up how violence consumes while giving the player total control over everything. Fary Cry 2 keeps it constant. The game is about war, and thus the story follows. It's certainly an easier line to toe than 3, but it achieves what it sets out to do.

That's about where I stopped with 3, since if a game fails there it can't really go much farther. However, 2 does indeed go one step further. It's one thing to have the gameplay and story work together. Plenty of games do this. It's another thing entirely to make the game convey a message through all this.

Because Far Cry 2 can get pretty dang boring. Enemies never run out and you need to clear camps every. Single. Time. You move through them. Missions never change much either. You'll run a gun related mission to unlock more stuff in the shops. You'll constantly get in and out of cars looking for meager handfuls of diamonds.

And it's not like the region will ever change, either. It's not like you're able to change anything. At the end of the day, everyone will shoot at you, no matter what. You can get to a new area, but that doesn't change anything, just expands it. You can run mission after mission, and nothing, nothing, will change.

I hope you're seeing my point. This is all very intentional. That's very often a defense thrown out for bad game design (I am looking SQUARELY at you MGS4), but Far Cry 2 gets it right, oh so right. The reason this simply isn't sloppy game design is that it follows the story and tone very tightly, to such an extent that this simply had to have been intentional. The entire plot is tedious and barely changing. The soldiers are hard to tell apart. And it's not like anyone goes about being happy or optimistic. This tone was taken very seriously, and reflected right in the gameplay.

It's not always going to be a fun game! It's really not! You'll grind through camps forever. Maybe you'll get a terrible sniper rifle or an awkward mortar. Maybe you'll get a slightly different pistol. It's all the same in the end, though.

Far Cry 2 makes war just so fucking boring. And I think that is the most powerful thing about this game. You can fixate on the gunplay, the fire physics, or the story, but at the end of the day, this is a game hellbent on showing you the crushing awfulness of war through a feeling common to many games: boredom.

You hear a lot about boredom in war stories. Look at any interview with a soldier and they're likely to talk about the crushing boredom inherent to war. It's not like games portray. It's not adrenaline pumping action, it's a whole lotta waiting. Far Cry 2 knows this.

But what if you push through all that? Surely, if you push through and kill the Jackal, the supposed source of this conflict, it'll all be over, right? Only it turns out the Jackal is on your side, you've been flaring tensions up for nothing, and in the end to actually help people the Jackal is going to have to die. Oh, and even if you somehow make it out alive you have malaria and are going to die anyway. Fuck you.

War consumes everything in Far Cry 2. It consumes the characters, the region, the game characters, and perhaps even your fun in the end. It's got a clear message and intent, and every element of the game works with it. Far Cry 2 is a sterling example of how to weave the gameplay and story, and I do hope more people take a close look at it.

How Far Cry 3 Failed at Story

Far Cry 3 is a video game. That's the start, end, and sum of all of its issues.

Source

This is a very odd game, looking back. It's been almost 5 years since it released and it continues to be a very present game. People look back on it fondly in a lot of ways, and in many areas I do have to agree with them. The actual gameplay is very good, particularly once the wingsuit is relinquished to the player. It gives a lot of choice to the player in the gameplay, and is a nice mix between keeping things at a good pace while also giving the player a lot of freedom.

I'm not here to talk about the gameplay, however. It works, it is good, etc. etc. That's beside the point. The far more interesting bit, and where I think it fails, is in the, well everything else. This is a game that quite honestly falls flat when it comes to everything but the gameplay. It tries to have a complex story deconstructing the gameplay and murder key to the game. In doing so, however, it fails to use this in anything but the script, and as a result comes out limp and toothless.

Except for Vaas actually he's a very good villain who really does do an effective job of communicating conflicting themes and overall pulls things together very nicely with some great voicework and brilliant monologues seriously he's like a character dropped in from a different much better writer

cough

See, here's the thing about Far Cry 3: it's ostensibly about deconstructing the violence in the game and how it erodes the main character's morality and sanity. Not exactly a bad idea for a game. You have to remember, back in 2012 things were pretty different. The violent AAA game was still being played pretty straight and the landscape for success was a lot more limited in publisher's eyes. We've gotten quite a few games going after that nowadays, but back then this was still a fairly new concept when applied to a big game.

The story is... well it's OK. I don't think the writers did a phenomenal job of it, but the core of the script is fine and for the most part I think they had a pretty solid thing going. It does tend to stumble sometimes, but I think for the most part they had a very basic idea going that could have been fleshed out very well. And like I said, whoever wrote Vaas definitely deserved a pay raise. Of course, it also stumbles sometimes, mainly whoever decided Vass should have been replaced with Hoyt should have been fired. But by and large, when I talk about Far Cry 3's story being bad, I am not talking about the writing.

People absolutely love throwing around the term ludonarrative, I've done it before even. I do really like this term, however, because it gives a vocalization to the idea of story and gameplay working together. It's really cool to see a game doing this right! It's also really interesting when it, erm, all falls apart.

It is quite obvious in retrospect that the game designers and story writers were not working so closely. Separately, they're fine as ideas and even mostly in execution in game. Neither works so well when combined, however. Far Cry 3, in what I think was likely some accident of miscommunication, tries to have its cake and eat it too. This is kinda tricky to explain, but let's take a look at 3 different parts of the game and I hope this'll become clearer.

Going forward I'm going to assume you've played the game or at least know the story, as it'd take too much time to explain otherwise.

In the Beginning
Far Cry 3 has a pretty effective story opening, I think, and hell, I think the gameplay for the most part helps out here. It's a tad out of your control, but that generally works to its advantage and you are for the most part in the same shoes as Jason. Out of control, confused, and maybe a wee bit scared. It works, it's not genius, but it's a pretty effective opening and makes the tone of this game known to you from square one.

And then you get in control of Jason, and the illusion just all falls apart.

See, here's the thing. Jason will act and talk like a scared kid in the opening portions of the game, which makes sense. However, it doesn't gel with the gameplay at all. You handle a machete in the same way at the start and end. Your gun accuracy? Always perfect. You'll run through combat just as flawlessly the first time as you do at the end.

The issue here is that this is not at all what's happening in the story. Ostensibly, Jason is terrified, has no idea what the hell he's doing, and barely even knows how to shoot a gun in a firefight. And then you get plunked into a firefight and none of that holds true. The story, in this part of the game at least, is so totally and completely undercut every single time you're in control. I understand that sometimes liberties must be taken, but when the basic acts of moving and shooting are contradicting your story, you may want a second pass at it.

The transition
It's certainly a good idea for a character arc to have Jason slowly enjoy and relish in the violence. It had never seriously been explored in a high profile game before and seeing as games tend to revolve around violence, it's a great fit too.

It was not to last in quality beyond and idea, however. The opening is a little worrying, and those worries just sort of continue and develop throughout the game. The entire game is just... so... static. Nothing ever changes. There is no progression in the gameplay besides the skills you unlock.

While I can perhaps see the intent to have your skills reflect your state of mind as a killing machine, it just doesn't work. How exactly does learning how to cook grenades or getting more health help show the player how Jason is? For that matter, why would an upgrade system work at all in this game?

I'm serious. This game should not have had a skill upgrade system if it was seriously committed to making the gameplay and story work together. The entire purpose of the game's story is that violence without thinking can be easily stumbled into, and any old person could slip into that darkness. That entire point does not gel with letting the player make specific choices on how to progress your killing excellence.

Maybe the idea was that you're somehow complicit in progressing this? It's done really, really badly if that was the intent. The game presents a story of out of control instincts and then hands you a handy menu in which to progress. It just makes no sense. Imagine, if you will, a game where your upgrades are gained by doing specific things. Maybe you learn a new, vicious way to kill from a mission. Maybe after you've killed enough with a grenade you unlock new ways to use it.A menu is just so... direct and against the entire flow. Jason progresses as a character in one part of the game. He progresses as an unlock tree in the next. Does it really have to be this way?

All for what?

Let's be real here; Far Cry 3 fumbles the ending, as it does with everything else. There are 2 endings that you can get by making the choice at the end of the game to kill your friends or not. If you kill them, you get a very, um, let's be delicate and say badly written ending. That's not the point here, seeing as we're looking at the gameplay vs. Story. The point is the other ending, where you just leave the island.

Why does this ending even exist? To fulfill some idea that video games need choice? This screams executive interference, and it just goes against literally everything the story has been building up to this point. Everything is building up to Jason killing his friends. It's obvious. The entire point of the game has been how violence corrupts and takes over one's morality. To give the player the option to say, "no", and go against every single point in the story is just... wrong. End of story. The player should not have had a choice here.

And that's pretty much Far Cry 3's story in a nutshell. OK, but brought low by it's inability to reconcile the gameplay and story. It's clear to me that everyone involved were concerned with making a fun game first, and a story second. While that may be all that is needed, it's disappointing that this is a sequel to a game that got this dynamic so, so right. 

But more on that next time. Thanks for reading!

What makes a choice matter?

You encounter an article on the internet! What do you do?

A. Read it (Friendly)
B. Skim it (Dismissive)
C. Critique it (Helpful)
D. Ignore it (Rude)

Will you be a cool guy, or evil prick?
Source

Look, I get it. Making choices in video games is fun! I like it! But we need to talk about the mass mishandling I see of making one's choices "matter". You want games to be taken seriously as a storytelling medium? Please, please start noticing this stuff. I do not want to name any names today but rather take a general look at this type of storytelling. Let's hop right in.

So generally there are 2 styles to this sort of interactive narrative. The more straightforward option is to actually make one's choices matter, have the story actually shift around them. This is not a very popular option in games, however, for a pretty good reason. Games are pretty expensive. It costs a lotta money to make new cutscenes and get new voicelines and make it all work in the game systems. You can't just write some more words like in a choose your own adventure book.

So generally the default is the 2^nd general option, what I like to call "fake choice". It's basically making your choices "matter", but they really don't influence the plot all that much. You could choose the rude option, the happy option, or the sad option, but you'll still get the same information and same objective in the end. Despite how bad "fake choice" can sound, it's not a bad option at all. It can lead to a much more focused story if you really only have 1 plot in the end, and makes sure no part of the game will suffer from bad writing because it just happens to not work as well.

Now, when you're talking about the overall narrative, this is all well and good. However, where it's easy to stumble up on this 2^nd type of story is in the moment to moment choices you make, in that it is far, farrrr too easy to just make them, well, pointless. I think this'd be better put in a hypothetical:
You: Hey, I just retrieved the (insert item here).Character A: Awesome! This'll be great in helping us defeat (insert enemy here)!

Dialogue options:

A – Show enthusiasm for plan
B – Show apprehension for plan
OK, let's just take a timeout here. This is a pretty typical sort of setup, where you can either agree or somewhat disagree with someone on the same side of you. Play any game that lets you make choices and you'll hit a similar scenario sooner or later. It's basic but still a very good setup.

Generally things like option A clear the way for a faster plot and more action. It's a safe choice that can also easily be leveraged to let the player see the non confrontational side of everyone. Option B scenarios on the other hand let you get somewhat deeper and lets you see the more confrontational side of people.

So even though both options will lead to the same sort of outcome, it's all in how you get there. Make each route interesting, make each route different enough, and most importantly make them mean something. If your understanding of a character is different in each route, that's a great outcome, essentially.

Now, let's see how this can go horribly, horribly wrong.

Scenario A:

You: Hey, I'm game. When do we get started?

Character A: We'll get started on this tomorrow. For now, get some rest, you've certainly earned it. Catch you later!You: Alright. Later!
Scenario B:

You: Are we totally sure this is going to work? Seems a tad risky.

Character A: Look, I get you're worried, but there's not much of a risk to this anyway. Just get some rest, we're all gonna need some for tomorrow.You: OK. I'll see you tomorrow.

So obviously this is really rough and short but you should get the general idea. The difference in these 2 scenarios is that there really are no differences. There's no room for diversifying or rounding out the characters. They both funnel the conversation into the same lines really quickly and still keep the same sentiment in both.

Your choices do not matter here. You learn nothing different, you don't get any difference in outcome, the tone isn't different, it's just the same scene, but one has them agreeing and one is a disagreement. Neither option garners any new reactions or even makes you think differently about it.

If you're going to keep the overall plot the same, you need to put a lot more consideration into how each individual moment makes the player feel about that overall plot. Going back to the 2 options I mentioned earlier, imagine a plot about saving the world or something to that effect. Now think of the 2 general character threads. One story has the characters working together all the while and eventually fixing the issue. The other has them arguing a lot but ultimately setting aside their differences to fix the issue.

There's a lot you can do with this! If you're smart the two ostensibly same plotlines can be interpreted to be almost totally different stories. You can view all the characters differently. You could gain info that radically changes how you view the same events.

The point of this whole article is that if you want to write a story and base your choices around upholding the "illusion" of choice, you are doing it wrong. Again, not naming names, but I see most games doing this horribly, horribly wrong. "Your choices matter" is pushed up as a marketing point when in reality, no, your choices do not matter.

"Fake choice" should still be choice. It is just that it should be about the characters and your view, not the plot. When a game fails to understand that, when it well and truly does ignore your choices, that is when people get frustrated with your game, and that is when you have failed as a story writer. This isn't easy, and I'm not surprised that countless developers fail at it. If for some reason any developers are reading this, keep at it. There's only one way to learn this, and it sure isn't gonna be from some random person online talking in the most general terms.

How to manage a community

So, typically I want to avoid this sort of stuff. Generally blog posts that are rants/examinations don't fit an all purpose area like this, and I have no intention as to delve into either of those fully. Today, we're going to be taking a good, hard look at how Blizzard fucked up in their latest Overwatch patch, and examining what this can tell us about how to handle a multiplayer game in general. If you don't play Overwatch, I'm gonna try to keep it understandable, but no promises.

Source

So patch 1.8 came out a while ago, and take one look at the forums at the time... oof. People were not happy with this update, and I'm honestly fully in their court here. I'm not here to rant or get mad, though. Let's take a calm look at the individual aspects of what mess the two weeks leading up to the update were. Obviously the response from Blizzard to fix this stuff has been swift and responsible, but I still feel it's a good idea to examine what not to do.

So let's start with the elephant in the room, or in this case, omnic: Bastion. The general community consensus was definitely that he was at least a tad overpowered before a hotfix brought him down a notch. While this might seem to be just a simple bad balancing issue, I don't think that's what you should be taking from this alone. Bad balancing happens all the time in every game, and the real issue lies elsewhere, I feel.

This is a prime example of a negative player behavior loop, one that is plain to see because the test server completely failed to catch this. The root cause is a lot more general and I will get to that, but right now let's look at why offering a direct incentive is a lot more important.

So when it comes to what is beta testing, in essence, there needs to be a big incentive for players to get in on it. Remember that it can be a big ask to get players to even load up the PTR in the first place. An entire 2^nd copy of the game needs downloading, plus any and all time you spend on it won't affect your progress in the actual game. Not to mention that it can be buggy, and a low player count means worse matches, and so on. It's a big barrier to entry for many, and what rewards do they get? The satisfaction of helping the game maybe?

What we're looking at here is what would be instantly identified as a poor rewards system inside any actual game. When all you have to offer is the vague satisfaction of maybe helping, that's going to be a nonexistent incentive for anyone not caring about high level play, for one. It's easy to forget that people will still follow said systems outside of the direct game, but this is a great example of this in action.

So, what about Bastion himself? The main issue that sprung from him was ultimately swinging the balance hammer too hard, too silently. Balance is already a tricky thing to do, but what I think a lot of people forget is that the developers have to take into account the community reaction when implementing or even suggesting changes.

Now, the community is often wrong when it comes to what they think is right for balance. Rightfully so, as we're not game designers, nor do we get paid to do this. However, that fact is a tricky one indeed to balance with what's right for the game. What's right is not always what will be percieved as right, and outrage among the playerbase can run rampant, making forums a mess and from an outsiders perspective making your game and playerbase look a lot worse.

Now in this case specifically, the community turned out to be very correct in their assumptions, and Bastion did swiftly receive nerfs a mere days after his buffs went live. So why the outrage? Point number 2: communication.

See, generally Blizzard are pretty good with communication, providing regular updates and posts for the community. However, developer updates and the like can be a bit sporatic, which makes sense. However, get a change the community doesn't like and have it line up with an unfortunate 2 week radio silence on it, and, well...

It was like a weird microcosm of a really resentful community for 2 weeks, let me tell you. Players got frustrated at the changes, frustrated at the lack of communication, and frustrated at how vague everything felt. It went from a pleasant relationship to a one sided shouting match.

That is lesson number two from this whole mess. Communication, however small, matters. You cannot rely on your community to moderate their feelings nor can you assume the best. If you set a standard of communication, stick to it. Doubly so when you're introducing huge change. Those are the times when the community is at the most volatile, when it's at its worst and most emotional. That's when the real legwork by community managers needs to be put in, and that's when you can make your game and community truly great.

And to cap this all off, the community outrage seemed to disappear in one simple dev post. That's all it took. Players are not anger machines. It is possible to control them and their emotions, odd as that sounds. With the right updates and openness, anything is really possible when you're making a multiplayer game in the community.

Short and shallow post this time, been busy, sorry bout' that! Hope you enjoyed anyway.

The problems with Ace Attorney

Okay. Let's do this.

Source

I want to preface this by saying I'm still a fan of Ace Attorney, and am really glad it's doing well. It's got great characters, an enjoyable plot, and a fun logic system. I'm about to talk a lot of crap about the series, however, so just keep this in mind... I love Ace Attorney, and still highly recommend all the games.

That being said. Over the course of the last 2 years or so I've finally worked my way through what's generally considered "The Big 3" visual novels, at least in western countries. Ace Attorney, Zero Escape, and Danganronpa. They're all brilliant games, and I enjoyed my time with each. However, after careful consideration, I have to come to a conclusion. Ace Attorney is definitely the weakest link.

I say this because after playing Danganronpa and Zero Escape, I've noticed things they do that were really clever, and then I look back at Ace Attorney, and it just feels... devoid of said elements. Oftentimes it's just a lot of small things, but those small things really, really add up over time. There's no better way to show this than by side-by-siding these games, so let's get right into it!

Yes this is the 2^nd article in a row where I compare AA to Danganronpa #noshame

So let's start with the gameplay differences, the more direct comparison. I've already outlined how Ace Attorney and Danganronpa do things differently. Let's talk about what Danganronpa just flat does better.

Primarily what Danganronpa does better is in the logical puzzles and challenges it lays out for the player. Ace Attorney's logic makes sense and is very well paced if you're following the order of deduction. However, if you get one too many steps ahead you're not able to skip to that, and must slog through the deductions you already solved.

This kills pacing completely. When the entire pace depends on your deduction skills, breaking away from it has the unfortunate effect of breaking the pace itself. You get brought to a screeching halt and have to bring the other characters up to speed, when realistically, you could just tell them.

Danganronpa is a lot more careful in its execution of working through arguments. The gameplay is the same, but it frames it in a much better way. This isn't a courtroom, where a logical argument will shut everyone up. You need to punch through the emotions and biases of the other characters, piece by piece, to get to the truth of the matter. You'll take part in minigames where characters won't listen to reason until you throw it right in their face. You'll have to frame answers in a manner that everyone can get.

It's not a matter of finding something that feels off, it's the matter of convincing everyone else it is off. You can push trials forward in Ace Attorney through vague ideas of not feeling right, which will often result in the characters hemming and hawing when you know exactly what's up. The other characters in Danagnronpa are active blocks at all times, so even if you know the answer there's a good, solid reason that feels right as to why you can't just out and say it.

Surrounding all this is the tone of the games. Now, Ace Attorney's tone isn't bad per se. It's a well established fact that it's a larger than life and goofy version of court, one with shouting and dramatic reveals. My question is, well, why?

Look, I get the tone doesn't need to be established, and I understand that consistency is what makes a world tick, not why it's that way. But after playing the other 2 games, Ace Attorney feels rather... empty in its tone. There's just no reason for it, and the craziness is just a thing that kinda.. exists in this world.

The other 2 games justify their tones quite nicely, on the other hand. Danganronpa's trials are tense and very volatile, much like Ace Attorney, but this is justified because, y'know. Murder school. There's a good reason for everyone to be shouting, a good reason for crazy theories to fly left and right, and a very good reason for things to be tense every step of the way.

Zero Escape's tone isn't quite as directly comparable, but for what it is it's done well. The atmosphere is oppressive and claustrophobic. Suspicion runs deep. Everything has this sense of danger and mistrust, and the deadly games played are the only reason the game needs. All the fear and suspicion flows naturally from that. The game knows damn well that it doesn't need to say why everyone's acting this way, because the backdrop has set that from square one. That's where Ace Attorney fails. The backdrop is a law procedural, and it just... is wacky, I guess.

Alright, there's one more point I want to bring up. Bringing continuity between games. This is by no means an aspect that Ace Attorney has failed at. It's more that it just gives it no thought. What I mean when I say that is a character or object from a previous game being brought into the new one. This can be a cool story point, or a fun callback, but it can just as easily be a lazy last minute addition.

I'm going to bring forward that by a lack of looking closely at the why, in and out of universe, Ace Attorney sometimes falls into this trap. Let's take Edgeworth's introduction in the last case. Why is he here? He's never been mentioned or important in this game before. This situation doesn't call for Edgeworth specifically. So why is he here? Outside of the game universe, it's not like Edgeworth achieves anything thematically or similar. There's nothing he does that another prosecutor couldn't do. So why does this situation call for this character from its mythology?

Massive Virtue's Last Reward Spoilers in next paragraphConversely, let's take a look at why Junpei was brought back for the sequel to 999. He, as a character, has a very clear motive: Akane. It was such a big deal for him in the last game, and it's not a surprise it'd continue to be a motivation here. Outside forces gave him this opportunity here, so it's not like it's random chance either. The thing is that here is that there's a clear and pointed reason for bringing a previous character back in Zero Escape, whereas Ace Attorney lacks that clarity much of the time when it does things like this.

It's not as though this is the worst thing in the world, and I'm not trying to say any of this stuff ruins Ace Attorney, not even close. Like I said, it's still great. And it's not like Zero Escape or Danganronpa are immune from their flaws, either. Zero Escape trips up in bringing back Clover from 999, and Danganronpa's character blocking approach backfires sometimes (I.E everything Yasuhiro "contributes" to the discussion).

What I am trying to bring up here is that Ace Attorney could learn a lot from these games. It's still got a strong base, great characters, awesome music, and fun trials. I just wish that it was all a little tighter.

Danganronpa Vs. Ace Attorney: How to make meaningful changes

Pleaedon'tkillmeIlikebothgames

Source

Man, I really cannot get enough of Danganronpa, can I? If you follow me on Twitter (Wink wink nudge nudge) you'll know I've been obsessed with it ever since I started playing. I obsess with a reason, however. Now why is it that all the visual novels I play involving murder trials are so good?

Yes, ladies and gents, today I'm going to be examining and comparing Ace Attorney and Danganronpa, though not to say which one is better(not today anyway). That in mind, let's take a closer look at these, shall we?

Source

When it comes to these 2 games, comparisons may seem odd at first. One's a high school death game, the other's a law procedural. Though they share investigations and "trials, really even a passing glance at both would never have you making direct comparisons. Those who have played both also know just how different they actually are. So why even compare them?

Mainly because of the underlying gameplay loop, I feel. They both follow the same basic formula of the Setup-Investigation-Trial loop that repeats for 4-6 cases in each game. Each game takes the time to set up its own world, and more importantly, own tone.

Ace Attorney strives for a somewhat clinical tone in its story. Yeah, it's wacky and ridiculous a lot of the time, but when it comes to the cases you're rather... detached, in a word. You often don't have much emotional stake in them, and when you do it's usually a very special case indeed. It has at least a semblance of an orderly trial, with cross examinations and evidence presenting going back and forth. What happens in between is often, ah, insane, but fundamentally it is still a law procedural.

As for the other game in the ring, Danganronpa is the exact opposite, purely chaotic. There isn't any set procedure or process to go through. Cross examinations become debates with many participants. Your own life is on the line, alongside everyone else's. You interact with everyone constantly, and any one person could be a killer or victim. This is no law procedural, it's a psychotic death game.

Let's take a closer look at some individual elements, shall we?

Gameplay

Again, both games do share fundamental bases with the gameplay, being logic puzzles. They both give you a mystery, a bunch of clues, and tell you to work it out through deductive reasoning and step by step logic.

Ace Attorney takes this premise and puts it into a courtroom, perhaps the most fitting environment for such a gameplay idea. All the actual logic you need to employ is step by step and every cross examination has a single key contradiction in it. If you're not cross examining people you're using other gameplay mechanics, yes, but you're always looking for one single flaw, and matching the right piece of evidence with it. The actual gameplay actions you take are all simple button presses, with most of the actual difficulty mainly coming from the logic puzzles you need to mentally work through. 

Source

The gameplay of Danganronpa is a lot different, despite similar concepts. Danganronpa has you needing to actually physically aim your evidence at the weak points in arguments, desperately sorting through letters to form words, taking part in actual confrontations against others, and more. On top of all this, there are time limits that you need to stay under all the while. Another key difference compared to Ace Attorney is that you've never got a pile of evidence to sort through, and you'll only be given a few truth bullets (evidence) per round of debating.

(I'd put a Danganronpa screenshot here but I literally cannot find one without spoilers)

Danganronpa and Ace Attorney each have you solving logic puzzles in very different ways. The time limit in Danganronpa forces you to think fast with the few options you have, while a lack of time limit in Ace Attorney is offset by you having all of your evidence to use all the time. It's a slow and caculated approach, helped by simple button presses, where in Danganronpa the heated debates where everyone's lives are at stake are much better represented with you needing to get more physically involved. Speaking of...

Premise
You can't talk about comparing these games without talking about the premise. They're such a fundamental part of what gives them their identity and the basic idea is so tightly interwoven with every singe part of the game.

Ace Attorney is a law procedural, obviously. Everything's related to the courtroom. You invesigate and file away evidence, as the police mark things down and the prosecutors prepare witnesses. Everything has a way you need to go about it, a way to question witnesses, and a way you need to ensure a proper, well-run investigation.

Danganronpa is a lot more messy. You know every single murder victim and you know every single murderer, throwing the possibility of a clinical assessment of every case out of the window. It's a tense and emotional setup, and every single person involved with the case is a potential murderer. These are high school kids, and this isn't their job. Every investigation is sloppy and fast, with you having a personal stake (I.E living) in every trial.

The premise does a lot for the tone and motions of each story. Say in Danganronpa, each trial will have a lot of accusations throughout, since everyone wants a culprit found for the sake of their own lives. Ace Attorney stays realistic(ish) to trial format, and you're only allowed to make formal accusations when the time and evidence is right.

It manifests in the little things as well. The manner of the number of people on the stand at once makes Danganronpa more chaotic and Ace Attorney more confined. There's the threat of legal oversight on your actions in Ace Attorney, while anything goes in Danganronpa. Ace Attorney also stays static in trial format while Danganronpa whittles the cast down, slowly making the trials smaller.

Characters
Ok, so I think by this point we've got a general idea of how a core idea behind a game does not a similar game make. Logic is executed on and used in very different ways in a court and a murder school. For the last part of this examination, let's see how characters impact the core ideas and mechanics behind the game.

So Ace Attorney's characters are firmly rooted in the law procedural, once again. There are a lot of characters but for the reoccurring ones, the most important thing to note is that they do this for a living. It's their job, it's what they do every day. Every trial is met with a certain amount of familiarity and confidence. All the lawyers are usually divorced from the case emotionally, and approach it as such. Ace Attorney is mostly made up of an adult cast, as well. Things can get quite crazy overall, but there's always this veneer of professionalism and respect everyone shows. All this is a textbook law procedural, like I keep saying. The characters are shaped and molded to fit this approach.

I don't even know what you'd call Danganronpa on the other hand. Maybe a murder mystery death game? Is that even a genre?

Anyway, the characters in Danganronpa are all high school kids who really, really don't want to be stuck in this death trap. For the purposes of comparing it to Ace Attorney, this is what that change does:

- This is an abnormal situation for them
- They have no experience doing this
- There is no expectation of professionalism

It's not like the characters know what they're supposed to be doing or how. Every investigation and trial is filled with some level of bumbling around and mistakes. As a result, the pacing is a lot more inconsistent, speeding up and slowing down at will depending on how the characters are acting. Ace Attorney stays consistent due to the nature of the characters, Danganronpa adds to the tension by making everything inconsistent, in no small part due to the characters.

We also see how points 1 and 3 seep into every aspect of this game. People are panicking and unsure of what to do. Remember the last time you were in a situation foreign to you and you had no idea what to do? The abnormality to the characters informs how they present themselves and how you need to interpret them. Everyone has something to hide in Danganronpa, while it's really only ever the guilty parties that are maliciously hiding info.

It's truly interesting to see how 2 very different series can have 2 very different tones despite the core gameplay ideas being pretty much the same. I'd say it's a great example of how your idea for a story, or gameplay mechanic doesn't have to limit you in any what whatsoever.

Mega Evolution Vs. Z-Moves

So Pokemon Sun and Moon are pretty good, right? General consensus seems to be that the games were pretty fun at worst, and a fantastic experience at best. But there is one thing in particular that has me giggling with glee, because I, along with a minority of people, totally called one thing years ago.

Source

Mega Evolution sucked, didn't it?

Ok, ok, I get it, I was far from the only one and really there were quite a few people who didn't like mega evolution when it was first introduced. But I think it was one key element from Sun and Moon to make people really see what was up with mega evolutions. Z-moves. What was it about Z-moves that made them so much better, and why are they getting compared to mega evolution so much?

Z-moves and mega evolution were both what I call "tacked on" additions. Despite that negative connotation, when I say that I mean a new element to the gameplay that has, in a sense, been stapled onto the side of the game. It's a bit tricky to explain, but you get that sense with a lot of sequels. The coin mechanics in New Super Mario Bros. 2, for example, don't change the core mechanics or add a core mechanic. They can still change a game in positive ways and are a useful tool, but as we can see in comparing X/Y to Sun/Moon, they can also go very wrong.

So what's the big deal with mega evolutions anyway? They're flashy, they're cool, and they provide a neat addition to certain Pokemon. What went wrong was in the overrarching implications of Mega Evolution. I could list a lot of things that I take issue with, like how their stats are too much and how it turns into a "win" button as you play the game, but those aren't issues with the core idea.

The core issue with mega evolution is that it's limited to certain Pokemon. This runs in opposition to one of the best parts of Pokemon, which is the Pokemon themselves. Right back to Red and Blue, the coolest part of the games for many was crafting a team that felt your own. You had 150 choices for your 6 team slots, and most players did not have the same teams or even similar ones. Of course there were optimal teams, but with a little elbow grease, grinding, or strategy almost any team could beat the game. It was truly your own adventure and always has been.

Mega Evolution sadly goes back on this feeling. For one, you get the obvious overpowered argument, and yes, it does mess with the balance of the game. However, Pokemon has always really powerful Pokemon, so to be quite honest that's not the issue here. What is the issue is that the defacto new addition to the series is limited to select Pokemon.

It limits team variety, plain and simple. It runs in opposition to what Pokemon is all about, in that it's always enabled more Pokemon to be viable from generation to generation. Through the simple act of making more Pokemon they could expand team variety. Alongside other things such as refining the battle mechanics to be more balanced and introducing alternative ways to use Pokemon besides battles, the series has generally moved in a direction enabling the usage of most Pokemon in one way or another.

Sadly, mega evolution moves backward. The fact that the cool new feature that's hyped up in all the trailers is limited to Pokemon really puts a damper on team quality. There are a few dozen Pokemon that can mega evolve, and that is it. You need one of these few Pokemon on your team in order to experience the feature, and that just means every team, even yours, is likely to have one of this small group forced upon you in this game.

This just kills team creativity in a huge way, and I don't think I need to explain why that's a problem. The core tenant of the series "gotta catch em' all!" has been undermined in the main quest. You cannot use "all" the Pokemon and still get the full experience. A more accurate motto for X and Y would be "Gotta catch em' all but make sure you use one of these few dozen!"

I do see the intent behind this idea, and why in concept I'm not opposed to having some way to power up weaker Pokemon. Sun and Moon definitely proved why it's not a bad idea.

The gimmick in S&M is super powerful moves, otherwise known as Z-moves. It gives you the ability to charge up and superpower any move once per battle, as long as the Pokemon is holding a Z-crystal. And this is miles better than Mega Evolution.

It should be quite obvious based on what I said earlier. Z-moves take what mega evolution was trying to do and finds a way to apply it to every single Pokemon. Your starter, legendary Pokemon, even a Magikarp can use Z-moves. It takes the idea of powering up a Pokemon and spreads it everywhere, rather than limiting it to a handful. It does the exact opposite of Megas and continues the series tradition of expanding who among the roster you can use.

So, why exactly does this matter? One game messes something up and another sequel gets it right, news at 7. What's cool about this is how closely linked these 2 mechanics are, in their implementation and in their effects, and in this we can clearly see how one went right, and one went wrong. Beyond the basic ideas being miles apart in their quality, it's the little details that make the difference here.

How about the frequency of use? You can use Z-moves once per battle, making it a careful puzzle as to when they're most needed. Mega evolution, on the other hand, lasts the entire battle, meaning the purpose it ends up serving is just a strong new Pokemon.

The held item requirement? Z-moves can be used by every Pokemon, some who really benefit by held items, so you need to consider what you're giving up by letting them use Z-moves. Mega Evolution basically results in legendary Pokemon stats, which, I mean... don't really need held items at that point. It's a no-brainer.

So what about giving weak Pokemon a chance to shine? Z-moves do that inherently, on a broad scale. Mega Evolution, while having the potential to fine tune specific Pokemon, wastes it on legendaries and Pokemon that were already plenty powerful. Why did Mewtwo, Salamence, and Rayquazza need more power?

I think you get the point by now. Obviously I'm ranting a bit, but it is so great to see the Pokemon developers realize that Mega Evolution was a bad idea. They took the core benefits it could provide and reworked it into a system that helps every single Pokemon. If that's not game design iteration in action, I don't know what is. I have high hopes for what comes next in the franchise.

Fire Emblem Awakening, Story, and Context

I never gave Fire Emblem Awakening a fair shake when I first played it, really. I played it, I enjoyed it, I talked about it, and then I moved on to other stuff. I'm fairly certain it's one of the last games I played before I really got into looking at games critically. And that's something I regret. When I played Awakening in 2014, I determined it was a great game. I was so, so wrong.

It's a fucking masterpiece, and I do not say that lightly. Awakening gets everything so, so right, and it goes above and beyond even that. You've got a complex battle system where paring up and relationships factor into it, where the weapons triangle and ranged attacks make for hugely strategic thinking, alongside having to manage levels, gear, and classes outside of combat. The gameplay is amazing, and the story, well, that's what we're here to talk about today. I think it'd be best to show this with the most impact story beat in the entire game, and you already know what I mean if you've played it. Let's talk about chapter 12.

Spoilers if you somehow haven't played this game yet. I'm also going to assume you know what happens, otherwise you'll be very confused.
So I think it's important to preface this by making special note of how this part of the story doesn't really revolve around themes or making the player think or anything like that. While that might seem like an odd thing to note, it's actually quite an anomaly in games writing to have a story purely ride on the quality of its plot. That's something I want to get into at a later date, but suffice to say games often have issues with making a plot that feels good because the player can by the very nature of the medium influence the pacing, thereby making it easier and less risky to ride on themes and making the player think. The point is it's already notable from the start to take a plot approach to it.

Of course, I say chapter 12 but really you can't ignore chapter 11 in this equation. Chapter 11 up to the end is much like any other chapter, with standard gameplay. The standout difference is the hostage situation around it, but hell, you even had a similar situation beforehand in chapter _. And even if you ignore that you've made it through assassination plots and overwhelming odds time and time again before this. The precedent of this game's tone has been set: serious, but not grave, a war story where the nation is at stake but your individual lives are not at the whim of the plot.

And then it all just... breaks. It's business as usual in the 11^th chapter up until you've cleared out all the enemies, and then Gangrel decides to raise the stakes by having arrows drawn at her. This is actually a big deal in the overall narrative, because it's the first time such an action has been taken. There are a lot of firsts to the story in 11, actually, and it's what I consider the big shift in the game. Before this you're presented with scenarios with the ideals of success and victory, and every challenge is meant to be overcome. This is the first time in the game where your agency and success is ripped out of your hands.

Speaking of choice, let's talk about your lack thereof. Right before Emmeryn takes it out of your hands, you're given a menu and 2 choices: hand the Emblem over or Emmeryn dies. Of course it doesn't matter what you chose, as I mentioned, because she takes matters into her own hands and sacrifices herself. Now I wanna be frank here, because I usually despise when games do this false choice stuff, where the devs obviously wanted you to feel like you're having an influence on the story but didn't want to actually change it, as that's just lazy most of the time and a bad use of the medium. Tropes and tools aren't bad, though.

See, I usually get annoyed when games do this because it's a very cheap tool, where you're often given a menu that essentially boils down to "Yes" and "Yes but I'm not happy" or something similar. It's fake choice that's just going to frustrate players when they find out that their choice never mattered. BUT it is possible to do a fake choice correctly, and by golly Awakening sure knows how to.

 Narratively there's really only one clear way to use the fake choice, and that's to have the point of the choice be your lack of choice. The player has no agency in this scene but it's all for a good, sensible story reason. Emmeryn is the type of person who'd sacrifice herself. Chrom can't do anything because the enemy has the upper hand, and he'd never willingly sacrifice his sister. It's important to make sure there are no contrivances when it comes to scenes like these, because when you take agency away you cannot have the player feel cheated in any way. This is really just a complicated way to say the game has good writing, but it really, really does.

How many shooting games have you played where the enemy took a hostage and suddenly you're unable to shoot them, despite shots being instant and in gameplay before your accuracy was perfect? It's stupid and frustrating when gameplay mechanics clash with the story. Now compare to Fire Emblem.

Could you shoot the archers down? No, you don't have enough to kill the dozens of them surrounding Emmeryn.

Flying units? No, the game has already established that those units take increased damage from archer shots, it's far too risky. Your army is mostly ground bound, anyway, so they would have no backup.

It's little details like that that show how thought and care has gone into how the story is presented alongside the gameplay, and that even the smallest things like a binary meaningless choice from a menu is used to great effect. It's a pretty sad and disempowering moment when you realize Emmeryn would have done this no matter what, that despite all your battlefield prowess you were doomed to fail this mission from the start.

And speaking of which, let's touch on Emmeryn's actual sacrifice too. Now obviously the idea of a character sacrificing their life for the sake of the others is nothing new, you've seen it done dozens of times by now, surely. It's all in the execution, however, and the little details are important nowadays to really sell such a scene.

Perhaps not minor, but in this case motivation is important, and it's important precisely because the motivation in universe is smart as all hell. It's not just forcing the power of the Fire Emblem out of Gangrel's hands, but forcing his army against him in the process. This is continuing Emmeryn's characterization, mainly for the player. She's always been presented as a wise and intelligent leader that had a good read on her allies and enemies. The problem with this can often be the fact that the player has to control the game, and qualities like this can get pushed to the sides. Another issue the story thus far has presented is that her kingdom is pretty much at a point where she only ever has one option to take at most times. These 2 are obviously good story and gameplay design, but it leaves her characterization and importance in a fairly awkward spot, since there isn't really a good way to show this that gels well with these practices.

So really it's a great story beat to have her qualities like these emphasized at the moment of her death, and to have that death be a sacrifice. Putting down one's own life is a great way to show wisdom, bravery, leadership, and similar stuff in a single instant. Put simply, it is in many ways the biggest and most dramatic way you can show a lot of serious character traits for a character already well established, and one you want to/need to kill off.

It's not like Fire Emblem is doing anything new with this, but it's doing it very well. With this action we see how much Emmeryn cares for her kingdom. We also see her caring for family, not wanting them to bargain for her life. Her independence and quick thinking is taken from an implied skill to being shown off. And she is also seen as incredibly smart, as her sacrifice motivates her allies, keeps power away from her enemies, and crushes the spirit of their army in one move.

So we've got the game batting a nice score with the story so far, and it's just getting started. Let's move over to gameplay and chapter 12.

Chapter 12 is a bit odd, since it's not very plot focused compared to previous events. It's just one battle, with the only important plot being the framing of said battle. Up until now, Awakening has been riding on the quality of its story. Now, it needs to make its gameplay mean something.

What's most impact about this chapter is how the gameplay doesn't change, or rather, how it cannot change. Everything around you is different. The mood is somber. The setup screen has no music, and the only sound filling your ears is the gentle patter of rain pouring down all upon you. There's nothing heroic here, no smart planning to be made, no tactical enjoyment to be found, no relaxing or tense music. Yet, the physical, gameplay process you go through to begin a battle will not change.

Nothing in the battle changes, either. You guide your units, attack the enemy, and nothing has realistically changed. And yet, everything has changed. Nobody really wants to fight. You're caught behind enemy lines, forced to carve your way out. The enemy is unwilling to fight after such a horrid display by their own leader and such bravery by the enemy, yet they must under threat of death. And you of course have this music playing, which is such a deviation from the heroic music you fought to beforehand. You can't even call it battle music, it's more of a reflective and emotionally out of control piece. It is flat out one of the most brilliant musical pieces I have ever heard.

I can't say how any one player will react to all this. Perhaps you're angry. Maybe you're in tears. You could be trying to avoid a fight. You could resign yourself to it. Maybe you're just numb to the proceedings and aren't even sure what to think. It's not my place to assume how a single person will react to this, but the one thing I can confidently say is that this will not make you feel heroic. It runs in opposition to the grand battles of before, the feeling of overcoming the odds and an evil. Nothing has changed in what you do, but really, everything has changed.

At the end of the day, Fire Emblem Awakening doesn't take any grand strides in video game storytelling, not really. However, the fact of the matter is that good writing by itself is rare in this industry, let alone good writing that interacts with the gameplay well. It's one of the best signs to me that a good story is something that is very important to the fabric of a great game. It doesn't have to be complex (A sad fight in the rain isn't a high level concept). It doesn't have to be long. It doesn't even have to change the gameplay. At the end of the day, what this one chapter from Awakening shows us is that story can make a good game truly great.

Dammit, Komaeda

What the hell. Let's make this a 2 parter.

Source

Spoilers. Obviously.

So previously, I wrote one thousand, four hundred, and fifty-nine words on one single element of the original Danganronpa. Today, I'm gonna examine one character in the game: professional crazy person Nagito Komaeda. Nagito is, in a word, really really interesting. There's a tone and way to his words and actions that really sets him apart from almost every character in the series, a kind of unsettling effect, like he's in the wrong story, reading from an entirely different script, one sort of aware of the story themes, rejecting the ideas of hope and despair yet at the same time embracing them like nobody else does. He almost actively refuses to take any roles in the story or group, up until a point. It's almost impossible to form a coherent picture of this guy, but I'm gonna damn well try to. Let's hope for the best, shall we?

Nagito the Hope

Source

This was a character expressly written for those who have played the first game. The whole game sort of assumes this anyway, but Nagito sticks out as some sort of parody or critique of the first game's themes and ending. If you've played the first game, the first thing you're going to think when you see him is "Makoto". It's written all over him. Similar design besides the hair, same Ultimate talent, trusts in the group wholeheartedly, hell, the same person even voices him.

Nagito is most certainly not Makoto, however, and the way in which the game starts to hint at and reveal this is instrumental to how you view his character. What may be the most vital element to his character, one you'll see reflected in every part and aspect of this analysis, is the disconnect between his ideals and his words and actions. Nagito talks a lot about hope, and I do mean A LOT. It's as if someone took Makoto's speech at the end of the first game about hope, and how it can overcome any despair, and built the foundation for a character on top of that. Nagito's principle motivations will often well and truly be this simple: he genuinely appears to want hope to prevail. The most striking element I can see is that when he tells you about what he wants, there's no bullshit in those words.

What's interesting about this is that the motivation is the first thing you really learn about the guy. There's none of his actions that will occur later in the way, and because it's shown so soon into the game it's easy to forget how benign Nagito appeared at first. It's also important to remember how little conflict or thought had honestly gone into the series about hope and despair. Hope and Despair were basically fancy names for good an evil in the first game, with good being resolved as the eventual victor as is expected. Of course, this worked fine for a murder mystery focus, with the overall themes and plot being more window dressing and backstory than anything else.

So the second game comes into the mix wanting to get more in depth about these themes and the world, wanting to break free of that simplicity. In essence it breaks free by tying the simplicity to Makoto and Junko, positioning them as forces of nature of Hope and Despair. Nagito pretty much exists as a character to mess with the perception the player likely has going into this game. I really do think that his character is "hope and despair", as in that is how he was written. It's what would happen if these 2 very different ideals were forced into coexisting within a character.

With that all in mind, let's look at our first look at him as a character: hope. Nagito is the first person to help you in the game, and he's the first person you can have a frank, proper discussion with. He's positioned as your partner right out the gate, or at the very least somebody you can trust. He's very much in support of the game of hope, as he should be, and appears to be very thoughtful and easygoing. His statements can be a bit grandiose and odd, but he seems to be a good guy.

What's really cool about this part of the game is how consistent his character remains. He's all about that hope, and when the objective is to be friendly and garner trust to gain hope, he's a pretty nice guy. But the circumstances change, and, well...

Nagito the Despair

Source

See, the groundwork for his character is that of hope, but he's not quite so simple as that. Nagito is a character obsessed with hope, and that's led him down some dark paths. He only cares about the result of hope, and believes that testing it and the resolve of people is a fantastic way to unlock true hope. He's cautious, never trusting that those around him are truly the hope, always needing to test that hope against despair first.

Nagito as a character spreads much more despair than hope, really. It's that sharp contrast between what he wants in the end and what he will do in the moment that makes him such a controversial person in-universe (Not out of universe, though. We love the guy).

Nagito is there to tear down all your preconceptions about hope being good and despair being evil. Hope is fine and dandy, but what if you'd induce hopeless despair to get to it? Is it worth pushing through despair? Those sorts of questions are at the forefront of Nagito's character, and it's not my position to say one side or another is wholly right. However, the fact is that Nagito's role in the story is these questions, and changing one's perspective is what he was put in there for.

Finally, I want to discuss Nagito's place in the actual plot. The themes are what I wanted to make up the meat but Nagito as a character serves the purpose of a rogue element. What's notable about this is how it changes the dynamic of suspicion compared to the first game.

The most comparable role in the first game would be Byakuya Togami. The difference between Byakuya and Nagito is that Byakuya never actually takes murderous action. He talks a good game but never acts on it, always planning but never moving. Compare that to Nagito, who tries to kill within the first few days.

This is the slow grind of suspicion versus the heated action of suspicion. It's certainly something I want to talk about in more detail in the future, but for now let's stick to a quick overview. In every other case in both games, there is only one person open in their intent to do harm, but only one of them ever actually acts upon it. There are no other characters in their separate games that kill or attempt to who aren't then immediately executed.

What Nagito does for the game as a whole is make it more frantic. He allows alliances against himself to form. He actually lets the remaining participants feel closer, as they all feel united against his obvious malice. What Nagito does for the game as a whole is subtle, but very important, and the closer you look the more impact he actually has.

...And that's a good place to stop this overview of sorts, I believe. I could go on for a lot longer about this guy's impact, but I'd just be rambling at that point and I need to cut this off somewhere. Nagito's one hell of an interesting character, and I love him to death for what he does. Never stop being crazy, you beautiful, hope obsessed person.