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 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.

A Personal Retrospective on Apollo Justice

Spoilers. Obviously.

Source

In light of the recent news that Apollo Justice is finally getting a mobile release, now seems a good time to talk about this one game, and hoo boy. This one's a beast to tackle. If you know anything about this game, you know how divisive and controversial this game is. On one hand, you've got the corner of fans who hate this game with a passion, and everything it represents. In the other corner are the fans who like it quite fine, and think the outrage over it is totally unjustified.

If you wish to know where I'm coming from when writing this, I'm moreso in the first camp. Apollo Justice is my least favourite Ace Attorney game, though not because of any drastic shifts in the world. My issues come from the story and actual logic it uses and how confusing it gets. So, sit back and let's figure out where this game went wrong, and more importantly, why.

So how did this all start? After the 3^rd game wrapped the story of the series up quite nicely, Capcom was at a bit of a crossroads. Ace Attorney was undoubtedly a money making series that they would do well to continue, but how does one continue after a clean end? Well, usually a reboot is what a lot of writers go for, but in this case, they decided to bring in a totally new character and story, keeping the game mechanics. However, it was eventually decided that they should keep some continuity, so they brought in some old characters as well to appease old fans.

Yeah, that didn't go over well at all. Most notably, Phoenix Wright was brought back, and let's just say a lot of people weren't' very happy with how they did this. It's interesting to look at, because it's a prime example of how not to implement changes in a character. 

The important thing to remember here is that at first, most changes are neutral in concept. I believe that the idea of making Phoenix lose his lawyer's badge wasn't what got most people upset. I personally think it's not a bad idea, and it's even a fantastic story hook to start off with. The problem is that this idea was clearly thought of in a vacuum, and they didn't properly take steps to make this make sense in the game.

This is made abundantly clear in 2 areas, both relating to the smoking gun of this idea: forged evidence. First of all, the manner in which Phoenix loses his badge is contrived as hell and totally clashes with the story and characters set at the end of the 3^rd game. At the end of T&T, it was clearly established that going forward, Phoenix had truly outgrown his weak, unconfident roots, and had truly risen to the level of a great lawyer. Nice ending, all wrapped up with a bow. But they ignored this, having him make the truly dumb choice of trusting evidence he had no time to vet. They also make him go against clearly established core values in previous games, him hating the idea of crooked tactics in court.

I rag on these tired points because it would not have been hard to fix these issues. Why not put Phoenix into a scenario where he has no choice but to present the suspect evidence? Say he had a personal connection to the defendant or something along those lines. It would have given a reason for him to act so recklessly. And on the other point, why not use the MASON system's capabilities to show past events to show hints of Phoenix becoming more jaded and disillusioned?

It's very clear that the writers were trying to recapture the essence of the first Ace Attorney game. Rookie lawyer, new world to establish, new gameplay mechanics. But in doing so, they fell into the trap of mostly looking to the first game for inspiration, and that led to Phoenix acting how he did in the first game. When you're not looking to how characters were at the end, you're not going to see any need to explain changes. So of course it seems obvious Phoenix would make a dumb move in that mindset. 

Alright, alright, I slag the game off a lot, but credit where it's due, besides how Phoenix acts, the game pretty much nails the first 2 cases. While a lot of people do just write the entire game off, it's important to recognize that the old AA magic is still very much present in a lot of the game. The setting may not be your cup of tea, but the first case has an excellent and engaging opening unlike any of the other games, and the 2^nd case is more of the same old AA excellence in a lot of areas.

Alright, I'm not here to give every detail on this game, as much as I would enjoy that. Just remember that I'm not saying as much about the good aspects of the game because of this fact. What I'm about to say is an analysis of what went wrong in the 2^nd half of the game, not what I personally think about it. Just remember that most of the stuff I don't mention I like quite a bit (Especially the music oh my god). 

So, case 3. This is widely considered a bad case by many, and it's an excellent example and word of warning to all story writers wanting to follow in the footsteps of crime stories. It's clear to me here that the separate elements of this case were almost certainly thought of separately, with no cross checking between them to see if they would work well together. It's easy to imagine such a scenario, too.

They come up with the basic idea of the scene being a concert, and they've already got a performer in the cast, so it already fits. They then think of the elements of this case, a defendant who can't speak English, a gun as the weapon, a “locked room” scenario, and the defendant can even be a kid. Maybe we can incorporate international smuggling, and undercover agents too!

Now, all this stuff sounds fine, but the details muddy it up, details that were clearly not , let's say, cross-examined. How is a kid supposed to fire a powerful gun? What motive would a kid have? How would an international smuggling operation fit into the overall story? How do we get the kid to show any personality, since all we really have is text?

All these elements, when you lay them out, look ridiculous if you try to combine them (Seriously, just throwing in international smuggling isn't a good idea). We can see how ridiculous this seems now, so why not back at the conceptual level? I can't say definitively, but the most likely scenario in my eyes is that they created the story in a modular fashion. By the time the separate parts started to grind up against each other badly, it was likely too late to change the fundamental parts of the case. It's a lesson in being sure to check and double check all the important beats in your ideas before expanding on them.

And, finally we arrive at case 4. No, that's not what I'm really wanting to talk about here. Case 4 is fine. Let's discuss MASON.

MASON is the most ambitious thing Ace Attorney has ever really tried. I'll be blunt; it didn't work. I'm not talking about the story, I'm talking about how it was conveyed. MASON, for those of you who don't remember well, is supposed to be a database of sorts where the jury is supposed to trawl through it and come to their own conclusion on the proceedings.

Sigh

I could literally write a whole article about this system, and why in the game universe it makes no goddamn sense. From conflicts of interest to half the stuff in it being seemingly irrelevant to the case, there is no way this would be greenlit. But let's assume for a second that it could get by (With the crazy legal systems in place it wouldn't be too surprising), and examine why it fails the player specifically.

For all the heat I give it, MASON could have worked in theory. A system where we jump between recorded events to try to piece together a story? Sign me up! But the issues are too glaring here to ignore.

It's linear to a disappointing degree. Yes, Ace Attorney isn't known for story paths or anything, but it doesn't let you discover clues and evidence on your own. Rather than using your own logic to figure out what you need look for next, it is in every way like a tightly written investigation sequence, just hopping between time periods. Yes, it still works, but why would we even need to go about figuring out this in such a convoluted manner? In such a story driven game, every piece needs to have a purpose, otherwise it's just fluff and not valuable to the story.

Of course, everyone's biggest complaint with MASON is how it seemingly allows you to transport evidence from the future into the past. Again, if you don't remember, often you would gain evidence from some recorded event in the future, but then go back to a recorded event in the past and still being able to use it. This is handwaved as not being a 100% accurate representation, but that's just not good enough. In a game built around logic and reasoning, such blatant lazy storytelling should not be allowed. It makes no sense, and even if there is a good reason it's confusing to the player, the death knell for any story.

MASON is the sign of the biggest problem with Apollo Justice: things just weren't fitting together well. You can see all the signs of good ideas underlying the problems at every step. Apollo is an interesting idea for a character. The music is SO GOOD (It's my favourite OST in the series guys it's that good).

The problem they hit looks very much to be scheduled related. Many of the ideas and characters were never given enough time to be expanded upon, and a lot of the plot beats simply needed more thought put into them. Apollo Justice is the victim of running out of time.

But it's not all bad, and I want to end this little look back on a positive note, because Apollo Justice is not a train wreck. Not by a long shot. Apollo Justice has excellent side characters, on par with the other games easily. I know everyone hates some of them, but they stick out and are very clear, and you're not supposed to be comfortable with Spark Brushel anyway guys. Seriously.

The game also has engaging cases, something I think a lot of people ignore. Yeah, looking back there are plot holes, but in the moment they've got a great pace to them, and ensure you're always engaged. The game has very clear signposting and good indicators for what you need to do next, something the older games did often fail at.

Regardless of what it does right and wrong, this game is likely going to remain contentious for a very long time to come. And that's fine by me. Every game series is gonna have one of these, right? I still recommend this game to any Ace Attorney fan despite all this, and I encourage you to try the upcoming mobile port if you haven't gotten a chance to play it yet.

And the music guys oh my god can we just talk about this again it's so amazing holy cow

Happy Birthday, Undertale

Holy shit, it's been a year.

 

It was September when i first heard about Undertale. Everyone I knew that was into games was talking about it. I only caught brief glimpses of it, and was honestly very confused. For the next few months, it was everywhere, and I do mean everywhere. After months of hype, I decided to see what this game was all about.

Best damn gaming decision I've ever made.

A year on, Undertale still stands as my favourite game ever. It's an experience I'm never going to forget, and one that will undoubtedly impact anyone that's played it. So, one year later, this is why Undertale remains #1 on my list of video games.

Oh, and spoilers. Why haven't you played Undertale yet?

Let's start at the beginning

I went into Undertale 99% blind. I saw a bit of the sans fight, the ruins, and a brief colourful glimpse I didn't realize was the Asriel fight. That's important, because Undertale starts out so unassuming, so small, so basic. It has a lot of personality, but nothing much else at that point.

Then Toriel showed up, and punched me in the gut. I love it when a game turns all your expectations around in once moment, and Toriel does just that. The game tells you that some monsters may need to have their health reduced. It shows itself as a simple RPG. It stays faithful to the retro aesthetic. It's not very serious.

The game does all this to fool you into thinking that it is indeed nothing more than it seems. Then, BAM, Toriel is dead, my knowledge about sparing monsters seemed wrong, and it's not just a goofy retro RPG anymore. There's death. There's emotion. There's tragedy. The first hour of the game sounds dreadfully boring, but it's so important for building up your expectations. Everything I knew was wrong, and now I had to travel into an unknown world that I knew nothing about. That is when Undertale had me interested.

Let's talk emotions

Undertale's got em'. This has been talked about to death by almost everyone, but I wanted to talk about what Undertale did for me. Undertale, more than anything else, was genuine at a time I needed it.

2015 was a rough year for my optimism in the games industry. I saw publishers try to squeeze money out of everyone in every way, I saw Nintendo starting to go down the same route after I supported them, and from my perspective (A misguided one now that I look back), the whole thing just cared about money.

So a game that just wanted to be a good game was just what I needed at the time. Undertale's quirky humour and random dialogue felt like a breath of fresh air. The battle system felt like something new and fresh. And this willingness to get into something new played a large part in how much the game pulled me in.

The game does have genuine emotion, I'm not discounting that. Papyrus is hilarious, Undyne and Alphys are adorable, Metatton is......

Flowey is legit terrifying, and the fight with Asgore is one of the few times I will use the word “epic” to describe something. What I am saying is that Undertale resonated with me because it just does what it wants. It's not restrained by doing what it thinks the audience wants, nor is it trying to do the “current” thing. The emotion isn't a list of check marks. It's genuine.

Undertunes

I remember the exact moment I knew I was gonna love Undertale. I had just arrived in Snowdin, and went to fight Papyrus because I wanted more of his dialogue. The fight started. I flirted with him (If you don't get it you need to get out because you haven't played it), and he activated his special blue attack!

Then Bonetrousle kicked in.

This was when I first thought “Holy cow, this is some amazing music!” It perfectly fit the scenario, character, battle, and raised it from a great fight to a fantastic fight with some sweet tunes.

And it just went uphill from there. From Spear of Justice to Dummy! to CORE, every single song is not only nice on its own, it also lifts every scene and scenario up to amazingly emotional levels.

When I traversed the waterfall, the music made me feel sorrowful and introspective, like this area held the ideals of freedom and wildness once held by the monsters.

When I fought Undyne, her theme was menacing. Here was an opponent actually trying to kill me for the first time, and the entirety of monsterkind would back her in this quest.

When I fought Omega Flowey, this theme instilled a level of panic in me the scenario by itself could never do. It felt like I was trapped in the madness for hours.

When I listened to the title theme, it was a retro jingle, one I'd heard many times over. After I finished the game, it was an opener to an amazingly realized and full experience.

When I fought ASGORE, this song was chilling, sorrowful, terrifying, awe-inspiring, regretful, epic, and final. This song embodied so many things, but more than anything else, it embodies the end of a journey, with all the mixed up emotions that come with it. It is one of the most emotional songs I have ever heard, and truly makes the battle against Asgore one of gaming's greatest. Undertale's soundtrack is legendary.

My emotions

Finally, I want to end off with something very personal to me. It was the moment Undertale connected with me in a deep way unlike most other games and media in general.

This song, and the walk you take with it, is burned into my head. It let me just think about everything that had led up to this point. Toriel, mosterkind's fate, Flowey, Asgore....

It let me think about loss.

Loss is something I am terrified of. Loss is something I worry about daily. What will happen to my friends after high school? Will my family still be here tomorrow? Is there anything I can do?

Undertale just gave me a scenario, a story, a song, and let me think. Those 6 minutes are precious to me. I thought about loss in the game. I thought about the loss I have faced and will inevitably have to face. I thought about the loss that occurs every day, by many people. I just stared at the screen even after the song was done, and just thought.

I couldn't sleep that night. No other game since Mother 3 has done that to me. The next day, I got up, and fought Asgore.

I cried. I cried tears of all kinds. I cried tears of sorrow, loss, and sadness, but also happiness, laughter, and appreciation. Undertale is the only game, no, time that I have ever, ever, experienced tears of joy.

This is why Undertale is my favourite game of all time. I could talk about how objectively good it is. But truly, it came at the perfect time. 7 months later, I lost a relative close to me. It is experiences like this that help me to understand, cope, and get through all sorts of things in this crazy experience called life. This is my personal connection to this small game called Undertale.

I truly and deeply thank you for reading.

Khezu: An Exercise in Bad Game Design

No, this article isn't only for those into Monster Hunter, don't let that scare you away. I'm not here to tear into my personal issues with this game I can't stop playing, though that would be supremely satisfying. No, we're talking game design, ladies and gentlemen.

Now, for the uninitiated, here's a quick rundown. In Monster Hunter, you fight various monsters of various shapes and sizes to get their parts and then make equipment out of them. Generally, the way of getting better is learning the monster “tells”, or how they move before taking certain actions, so you know what's coming. That's what's really important here. The general loop is that you need to fight monsters over and over for certain parts, and in doing so you learn the tells and get very good at fighting them (Ingenious game design, I might add).

And if you want an example of a game going totally off the rails and producing a substandard gameplay scenario, the Khezu is it. This monster has everything. Bland design. Terrible tells. God awful design choices around it.

And I also might be angry because it came back AGAIN in Generations dear god why

Let us start with the design, and already everything is so, so wrong. See, most monsters have an immediately enlightening design. If you look at the Rathian, for example, she has a big, spiky tail, huge wings, and looks like a stereotypical dragon in a lot of ways. Unsurprisingly, she has many tail attacks, flies around a lot, and breaths fire. The design gives you a hint of what it can do right out of the gate, playing into learning the moveset. That's great design.

The Khezu does not do that. Let's just take a quick look at some of its more unique features:

1. It has a head that can extend very far for some medium ranged attacks.
2. It can generate electricity from its body and mouth.
3. It can climb on walls to escape.
4. It has a very hard tail that you can't really attack for the most part.
5. One of the louder roars in the game.

I ask you, where is any of this communicated on this monster's design? The head doesn't have anything that looks extendable. Nothing about it looks even remotely related to electricity. You're not going to see the bottom of its feet, which do look like they could climb on walls. Moot point if you can't see them, though. The tail looks exactly like the rest of the body. And how am I supposed to guess that the roar is going to be crazy loud?

None of this really matters after the initial encounter, yes. Once you know the attacks, the design communicating potential attacks isn't needed. But it shows sloppiness and a lack of caring, stuff that really does carry over to the rest of this monster.

See, my issues with Khezu are mainly in the fight itself, AKA the “Screw you, blademasters” fight. Let us start with a seemingly innocuous thing, the fact that the Khezu climbs on walls. Seems harmless, right? Yeah, no. What this actually does is make it impossible to attack if you're using a melee weapon (May I remind you, 11 out of the 14 weapons are melee). Waiting is not fun in games. Think we can all agree on that. What this does if force most hunters to run around dodging slow electricity balls for a minute, with no chance to counterattack or do anything of substance. It is boring, unfun, and just not well thought out.

Second on my list of grievances is the Khezu's favourite attack, surrounding itself in electricity. The issue here is the tell. Khezu sparks with electricity for about a second then surrounds itself in electricity, which does sound like a reasonable windup. The issue is that this, again, screws any and all melee weapon users. For many weapons, if you're currently right beside Khezu, there's simply not enough time to actually get away once the tell begins. Sheathing your weapon in this game to run faster takes a full second, which means you're very likely to get hit.

And when it comes to gameplay, making about 3 quarters of your weapons a bad choice against one monster is simply not good design. Making one or two univiable is actually a good idea in many circumstances. It can force people away from their comfort picks so they actually try something new, therefore seeing more of the game. But you limit, rather than expand, if you make most of your weapons a subpar choice. Even in the intention was to get people to try out gunner weapons, it's still a bad choice because you need a whole new set of armour to use gunner weapons. You're making people decide between a terrible hunt or grinding for a whole new set of armour, not an attractive one to be sure.

And yes, there are ways to get around this monster in more recent games. Using adept style in Generations lets you dodge through the electricity, and does mitigate a lot of my issues. It's still bad design if you're pigeonholed into a very specific gameplay style just because you use blademaster weapons.

There's also just a lot of baffling design choices made for seemingly no good reason. Why does the Khezu have no battle music? Is it supposed to be for immersion, since it can't “see” you, only “smell” you? Immersion here comes at the cost of a lifeless and silent fight. I thought my game was glitched when I first fought it, a player shouldn't think that!

In the same vein of bad design, what parts am I supposed to break? If you don't know, you can attack and break certain parts of a monster to get more crafting materials. But the Khezu is all a grey blob, with no standout parts. Using the Rathian from before, the tail and wings are very prominent, and look breakable. Lo and behold, the tail can be cut off, and the wings cracked. Can the back of the Khezu be broken? The head? The tail? There are no stand out indicators here. 

So it is with bafflement that I look at Khezu. Look at the monsters in this series, and they have varied designs, fun fights, and all show evidence of thought and effort put into them. Then there's Khezu, who looks so out of place with the sloppy design, lopsided fight, and baffling design choices. Regardless, I will continue to use this monster as a great example of bad design in a good game, and how even the best developers aren't foolproof.

Why I dropped Bioshock Infinite

I never finished Bioshock Infinite. Never even remotely got into it, really. Does that disqualify me from critiquing it? Maybe as a whole, but I feel the beginning of a game is so vital, and you can spot far reaching issues in those first hours.

You see, what the game does at the start shows a way of thinking and design philosophy that I absolutely knew would not change. It shows a disregard for an artistically sound and consistent experience, and produces quite honestly nothing more than a complex facade that makes the game appear thoughtful, when in reality it shows some of the worst writing I have seen in a while.

It's a game, right?

Chief among these issues is how the game seems to forget, quite honestly, that it's a game much of the time. There were 2 crazy long portions of the game with no substantive gameplay in the bit I played. First was the intro, where you just walk around and pick stuff up as you see the city around you. As well, the sequence where you try to get to Elizabeth in the tower is just a lot of walking and looking.

These sequences fail for a number of reasons. First, because there's not much to discover or think on. If I was a game developer and wanted to put a sequence such as this in, it would have to be for a damn good reason. Maybe the player needs time to take something vital and plot-twisting in and gameplay wouldn't let them think on it. Whatever the reason, Infinite doesn't have a good one. In the first sequence, you will pick up very, very fast that Columbia is an old fashioned city in the sky. The 2^nd one starts off a bit better, but once you learn that the city fears what Elizabeth may be, you're just halfway through, and past that point you learn absolutely nothing.

What Infinite doesn't seem to understand is that slowly seeing more of a place means nothing if that more doesn't teach you anything. I don't care about seeing more of a city if all I need to know (Old fashioned, floating, very religious) was discovered 10 minutes ago. I don't care about seeing more of a prison if all I'm going to know was discovered in the first 5 minutes. No gameplay is useful to take information in, but it has to be constant, relevant, and quick, because the absolute second you dawdle or give useless information, your time would be much better spent on actual gameplay.

Infinite seems to think more visuals are interesting. They're not.

Oh god, why did you do that?

When I see characters acting stupid just to push the plot, I will get the hell out while I can. It's not only bad for the plot, it shows bad, bad writing skills that signal a messy plot to me. I have a habit of dropping stories that show this, and Infinite was no different.

But this game may just have broken a record for how fast they passed the idiot ball over to the entire cast of the game. First, they show the sign of the “False Shepard” on a poster, which Booker has on the back of his hand. Rather than covering it up because obviously it's a bad thing to have, he just traipses around with it for all to see, and he eventually gets caught. This is to give a reason for the first combat encounter of the game to occur because the police see the mark. They could have done this in literally any other way. They could have had Booker cover it up with a bandage, accidentally raise the suspicions of the police, and then they uncover the mark. I literally just wrote a better plot point than the people who are actually paid to write this.

Why does the populace ignorantly go about their business after Booker slaughters dozens of police? Idiot ball. Why do the people of Columbia never take advantage of the magical powers vigors provide? Idiot ball. Why does Booker immediately start murdering police in front of the girl he's supposed to be rescuing, thereby terrifying her? Idiot. Ball.

That last one is my personal favourite, because right after she runs away from you, quite realistically because you just killed dozens of people. For that brief moment, I thought “FINALLY, someone says and does something that makes frakking sense!”. But she is then instantly convinced that Booker's fine and happily walks through the city with him.

That's when I stopped playing.

Ludonarrative Dissonance

Those 2 words are my absolute favourite term about gaming. It refers to the intersection of gameplay (Ludo) and the story (Narrative) within a game. Bioshock Infinite has a massive case of Ludonarrative dissonance, one unlike any other I have ever seen.

The gameplay is all about desperate survival. Fast paced shooting, scavenging supplies, using vigors for your own purposes, it all communicates dirty and violent combat just to survive. And that's all well and good, carried over from the last game where that indeed was the setting.

Only the setting here is a prim and proper city that had no conflict before you arrived, where the vigors have no place in, where scavenging should be the last thing you need to do. This issue has been well documented, and I feel no need to expand on the issue itself.

Instead I want to actually, fully, and honestly draw attention to why this literally failing basic game design 101. You see, motivation is key when it comes to making a compelling gameplay scenario. If there's not a good reason for you doing the stuff you are, it becomes flat, unmotivational, and will make little sense. This happens in every well made game. Whether story driven (Insert story reason here), multiplayer (Winning over real people), or some reward (Awesome new sword), there's gotta be a good reason why you're playing the game.

Infinite lacks that in a big way. It appears as though you have a good reason for your actions (Wiping away crippling gambling debts), but it's a bad reason for the audience. We don't know anything about Booker, and this will fail to engage the player. The reason I'm bringing this up in a section about ludonarrative dissonance is that it would be the game's one and only chance to fill in the gap the dissonance leaves.

There's no rhyme or reason to the story interacting with the gameplay. One minute you're shooting up a ticket station, the next you're happily taking in the sights of a carnival. I checked before dropping it for good, and the game doesn't really ever solve this issue, proving my suspicions right. Ludonarrative dissonance guts the story, makes the gameplay feel off, and again, shows sloppy writing and a general lack of thought. This is what happens when you plunk one game's mechanics into a completely different setting. It should have never happened.

Ok. What's the point here?

A lot of this sounds like simple critique of a game, but my overarching point here is that I saw all this in the first 3 hours. I went from the opening scene to the firefight in the carnival. I saw a game not caring about proper pacing of gameplay, and only cared about the “deep” story. In that story, I saw desperate attempts to appear deep yet in actuality doing very little. I saw a game giving absolutely no thought to how the story and gameplay worked together. I saw a terrible plot for the sake of gameplay, and choppy gameplay so they could insert “thoughtful” story. I saw a badly thought out, sloppy experience that had no value in continuing.

Bioshock Infinite felt like the game that best represented bad “AAA” games of the last generation. It felt like it was simply checking off boxes to make a successful yet thoughtful game, yet not actually thinking about those boxes. Complex story? Check. Messages about religion and racism? Check. A sweeping soundtrack? Check. Standard shooting gameplay that ever consumer knows about? Check.

Bioshock Infinite checks those boxes and nothing else. It has a complex story, yet fails at almost every basic storytelling post. It has messages about religion and racism, but really it has nothing to say and only put them there to appear like it does have something to say. It has a sweeping soundtrack, but a soundtrack that has nothing lasting. It has standard shooting gameplay, only put there because it's popular, ignoring the fact that it doesn't fit the story at all.

I saw Bioshock Infinite as a manufactured, false, focus tested, passionless game in the first 3 hours. That's not the kind of game that deserves my time.