Sports games aren't well designed*

Seriously sports games aren't well designed.

*Ok, so that title probably deserves a bit more of an explanation and here it is:

Actually it's more like the sub-set of sports games dealing with the actual sport of football that aren't well designed. Now, before we get too much further it is still very possible for a poorly designed game to still be fun and popular(see also: the ~20 years they've been making 'Madden' games). That said this article was inspired by a podcast between ESPN/Grantlands BillSimmons and a friend of his Gus Ramsey discussing the newest 'Madden' football game. Over the course of the podcast they went through some of the changes from the previous version, discussed strategies, evaluated player ratings, etc. However what really stuck out to me was when Gus mentioned that he was tired of playing “jerks” online. To him jerks where those who tried risky tactics in order to get a edge (onside kicks, two point conversions, etc.) and/or those who quit the second they got behind. Now the issue of ragequitting is something I've addressed in a previous article and I believe that the solutions I proposed for fighting and FPS games are just as applicable for sports games so let's look at Gus' first complaint: the “jerks”.

According to Gus the jerks are those who play a game that's supposed to simulate an actual football game nothing like how an actual football game is played. Again ignoring the ragequitting issue when their risky strategies don't work let's look a little deeper at what they're doing and why. In the actual game of football you rarely see onside kicks because when they don't work it's either the end of the game or a huge momentum shift. The onside kick works best when it's well disguised, used in a non-obvious situation (so that the opponent has the wrong personnel on the field) or basically the opening kick-off the second half of SuperBowl XLIV between the Indianapolis Colts and the New Orleans Saints. A calculated gamble designed to catch your opponent with his pants down. In a video game world most of the risk is already gone as you're no longer talking about a game with huge financial ramifications for winning or losing you're talking about a video game. This makes it so that people are naturally going to be more inclined to take risks. However that's only part of it. The other part is the system that rewards such risk taking. What people seem to be looking for in these gambles are where the risk of failure is outweighed (usually significantly) by the crippling blow that a successful gamble yields. What I gathered from Gus' complaints was that whether the player was using the surprise onside kick, a new feature to which they are limited to two attempts per game, or the regular onside kick that the (successful) application thereof would quickly turn a game into a boring route that bares little resemblance to an actual football game and that in general the players implementing such tactics would, were their onside kicks unsuccessful, quite. It is also interesting to me that in researching this article that the developers (EA Sports) specifically mentioned that the surprise onside kick being limited to two attempts per game was specifically implemented in an (failed) attempt to curb dick-ish behavior. This is a very heavy handed and seemingly ineffective solution.

So onside kicks are an issue. So too are two point conversions. So too are probably a lot of other mechanics. Too many to discuss here. Going back to the original point the 'Madden' games are well designed games if you're looking for a fun football simulation but they are terribly designed games if what you're looking for is a near 1:1 replication of how an actual football game plays out. It also seems that EA Sports' solution to these issues/complaints are as mentioned somewhat heavy handed. In a real football game nothing other than common sense (and being overly predictable) is stopping a coach from calling for a “surprise” onside kick after every score so why are those who coach digital players prevented from doing so? The best solution, it seems to be, would be to implement some sort of AI tweaks under the hood that would, nearly independent of player skill, affect the success rate for such tactics. That is let the players do whatever they want but don't tell them the likelihood of what they're doing being successful. Obviously that's not an easy addition to make nor is it guaranteed to limit such player behavior but hey it's a start.

Online vs. Offline: Fate of the Netplay Continuum

Ok, so this week we're going to look at an issue that I feel isn't being addressed by enough (any?) developers and that, in my opinion, is only going to get worse going forward. The issue in this case being when the game plays very differently online than it does offline. Now, there are any number of reasons for this but I hope to hit on the two big ones though a couple of examples. Theese reasons being sub-par netcode and mechanics that lend themselves to abuse with lag. The frustrating thing is that both of these issues are something that developers should be able to control for which makes it all the more surprising when they don't. To this end we're going to look at two games that manage to screw up their online play by either shipping the game with crap-tastic netcode, developing a game with online abuse-able mechanics or both.Ok, so this week we're going to look at an issue that I feel isn't being addressed by enough (any?) developers and that, in my opinion, is only going to get worse going forward. The issue in this case being when the game plays very differently online than it does offline. Now, there are any number of reasons for this but I hope to hit on the two big ones though a couple of examples. Theese reasons being sub-par netcode and mechanics that lend themselves to abuse with lag. The frustrating thing is that both of these issues are something that developers should be able to control for which makes it all the more surprising when they don't. To this end we're going to look at two games that manage to screw up their online play by either shipping the game with crap-tastic netcode, developing a game with online abuse-able mechanics or both.

Solid Snake may or may not have been spotted prior to this image capture.

Alright so first up is a game that I often cite to friends as an example, outside of its gameplay (which is a more subjective sort of thing), of how to do things. Things in this case referring to its implementation of training mode, challenge mode, replays, button configuration, etc. Basically, in my opinion, 'BlazBlue: Continuum Shift' is a game that gets everything outside of its gameplay correct. And yes, for purposes of today's discussion that would also include its netcode. So then, you may be asking, what's the problem. Well remember way back in paragraph #1 of this article how I said there are two problems that can cause a severe disconnect between how online and offline play. Well 'BlazBlue' has a big issue with one of its gameplay mechanics. Namely how it handles throws.

The game really wants you to know you screwed up if this throw is successful.

Every fighting game that I'm aware of has a system to allow for throws as at the most basic level (most) fighting games need to have a sort of rock-paper-scissors system in place where: Attacking beats Throwing beats Blocking beats Attacking. In this sense 'BlazBlue' is no different from any other fighting game. Also like practically every other fighting game 'BlazBlue' has a system wherein when one player attempts a throw their opponent has a (small) window to tech or break the throw. However where it mixes things up is that it's the only game I'm aware of that allows for throws to be attempted mid-combo (opponent in hitstun) and again is the only game I'm aware of where throws to do anything other than whiff on a blocking opponent (opponent in blockstun). Now going back to the throw breaking mechanic 'BlazBlue' allows for 13 frames (~1/6 of a second) to break a normal throw and 27 frames (~1/2 a second; an eternity in a fighting game) to break a throw that was during hitstun or blockstun. The issue here is that the player can attempt a hitstun or blockstun throw at any point and, if it is successful, they're rewarded with significantly more damage than they would have otherwise gotten. So why is this a problem? Well offline it really isn't. As you can see from the visual indicators that accompany throws both the normal and hitstun versions are basically break-able on reaction offline. Online is another story where it takes very little lag for those windows for breaking throws to get shot to hell. Now I don't fault people for playing to win I fault the developer for implementing a mechanic that causes a severe disconnect in how the game plays (or can be played) online vs. offline.

Our next example is old favorite whipping boy and a game that I didn't think I'd be talking about again before November in 'Marvel vs. Capcom 3'.  Now 'Marvel' unlike 'BlazBlue' manages to be a game where both the netcode and a game mechanic issues are serious issues that serve to differentiate its online play from its offline. Now there really isn't much to say about bad netcode other than its bad. It results in matches that take a fast paced game and make it feel like your characters are moving underwater. Now it isn't to the point of being totally unplayable but my rough estimate would be around one in ten matches is. The simple solution here is to develop and implement better netcode. The other issue is one less easily fixed and judging from early videos of 'Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3' one that they're less incline to fix in team aerial combos (TACs). This mechanic is one in which during a combo the player performing it may press the 'special' button and a direction and tag in one of the other members of their team. The direction pressed influences the properties of the hit in addition to conveying other benefits to the player performing it. Downward exchange gives a lot of free meter, side (either) exchange gives some meter and better control over which character is tagged in and up gives the rest of the combo a better damage multiplier. Now it isn't all peaches and cream as the opponent has an opportunity to break up the TAC by pressing the 'special button' and matching the direction that the opponent is pressing (with left and right being interchangeable guesses). This results in a rock-paper-scissors guessing game that is ridiculously skewed in favor of the player initiating it. So what's to stop your opponent from going for it constantly? Well, if you guess correctly their character takes some damage, the combo is broken and the tag fails. It's also worth noting that the window with which a player has to counter these exchanges are in my opinion pretty reasonable. At high level play they definitely add an extra dimension of trying to out think ones opponent. At every other level of play, especially online, eh not so much. Online is especially problematic here as what becomes a high reward moderate risk maneuver offline becomes with the addition of lag a high reward no risk option online. That's because online not only are you guessing the direction that your opponent is going to exchange you're also basically praying to whatever deity you believe in for the game to accept your input within the necessary window to break the exchange and more often than not (usually way more often than not) that's just not happening. The knowledge of how difficult these exchanges are to break has lead to a large sub-set of the online player population eschewing doing actual combos with their characters in favor of continuously doing exchanges as the latter will, if never countered, do more damage than traditional combos in addition to generally being more idiot proof with regards to dropping the combo.

If 'BlazBlue' pioneered the phrase “How netplay was his netplay?”*. Then 'Marvel vs. Capcom 3' perfected it. That's not a good thing. Now with 'BlazBlue' the throw mechanics have remained more or less the same with every iteration of the game so it would seem that the designers are indifferent to this issue. However with the upcoming 'Ultimate Marvel Vs. Capcom 3' they're supposedly overhauling the netcode (we'll see) and they've made some tweaks to the TAC mechanic. So I guess file that under 'wait and see' and I'll see you all next week.

*What this is basically asking is how bad was the guy you where playing and how much did he rely on tactics that could be generously classified as 'online only'.

Unlockable Unlockables

Hello and welcome to another installment of our continuing mission to explore new terribad ideas and poor design choices. Today we'll be looking at how not to handle unlockables. Now, the concept of an unlockable is almost as old as video gaming itself. Meet certain conditions and you'll get to play as a boss character or maybe there are some additional super-hard levels awaiting those who persevere. Either way it's a simple concept that can, if done correctly, add a lot of value to your game's experience. In ye olde days most unlockables where additional content that wasn't necessarily critical to the overall game. These days not so much.

***500 Player Points are required to continue***

Don't worry. I'll wait. See how annoying that is?

In the first set of games we're going to be looking at unlockables are used to draw (see also: force) attention to an area of the game that the players might otherwise ignore. In the second set the unlockable content is simply withheld until the player has done enough grinding to satisfy some arbitrary threshold. It's also worth noting that for the purposes of this article I'm only referring to games in which either the multi and single player interact via unlockables or multi-player games in which the unlockables are just that poorly implemented.

***1000 Player Points are required to continue***

Sorry, I'll stop.

As mentioned above the first category offenders are those games that force the player to go through other (single player) modes in order to unlock multi-player content. The most egregious offenders in this category are fighting games and the most egregious offenders amongst fighting game (at least that come to mind at the moment) are 'Super Smash Bros. Brawl' and vanilla 'Street Fighter IV' ('vanilla' here referring to the first of three versions of the game). For Brawl we're looking at a game that has 36 (37 if count Zero Suit Samus) playable characters of which 14 must be unlocked. Now, while it is worth noting that all of them can be unlocked through normal (multi-player) gameplay that they all also have faster, if significantly more irritating ways of unlocking them by going through the games other modes collecting random trophies, completing events, etc. Hell, one of the unlocks is done simply through playing the game for ten hours, i.e. leaving your console on overnight. This is not good design. Withholding content until these criteria have been met is just obnoxious. Well then I guess the good news then is that vanilla 'Street Fighter IV' only has 25 characters. However that good news is followed swiftly by some bad news: you have to unlock over a third of them. The criteria here might actually be more tedious than Brawl as it involves simply grinding the same stupid single player mode over an over again. The criteria ranging from simply beating Arcade Mode with a specific character to beating arcade mode with every character (except the one you're unlocking obviously) to beating arcade mode while getting multiple perfect, super and ultra (don't worry about what any of that means just realize that it's arbitrary and obnoxious) finishes. Ugh, moving on.

Now we hit on those games which (thankfully) restrict their multiplayer unlockbles to the multiplayer mode(s) yet somehow still manage to screw things up. The best example of this and a game that in analyzing it last week actually inspired this article would be 'Killzone 2'. Now in general the pinnacle of class based shooters (FPS games in which players are allowed to select specializations) is the now free to play 'Team Fortress 2' so any game that's stepping into that sub-genre is going to have to at least kind of stand up to this comparison. Now, you might be saying that TF2 has unlockables and you'd be correct. However they're what we where talking about at the beginning with regards to correctly implementing unlockable content. You see none of the TF2 character classes are locked to the player. The unlockables are all extra tools for their respective classes (usually new weapons). It's also worth noting that (to the best of my knowledge) the new weapons unlocked in TF2 would be classified as more 'different' than 'better' than the starting weapons in that they allow the player to go about a certain class in a different manner than the stock equipment allows for. Ok, so now that we're done fawning over TF2 and explaining why it's a well designed game let's get down with why 'Killzone 2' isn't. The main reason for this is that 'Killzone' ignores TF2s example of how to do things and forces the player to unlock every single class via fairly tedious multi-player grinding. Here's a hint: when playing a class based shooter and everyone is forced to play the same (starting) class for a long time things get boring in addition to there just generally being a hell of a let less strategy involved. Hell, 'Killzone 2' even manages to cock-up it's one original idea (as far as I know) with regards to class based shooters in its multi-class combinations (that is allowing one class to borrow a skill from another). It does this mostly by making the more useful abilities for cross class work obnoxiously difficult and tedious to unlock for multi-class use.

Well that's pretty much it. Before I go I would also like to point out that I don't think 'Killzone 2' is that bad of a game it's just that had it not made a few small mistakes it could have been a future classic. Also another reason that I find unlockables irritating is that with the burgeoning competative scene for video games organizers are often relying on participants to bring some of the equipment and since most information these days is stored on a console's hard drive if a player hasn't unlocked everything for a game (or purchased DLC) then that console is useless for tournament purposes. Sorry there isn't a more cohesive conclusion on this topic but I'm being told I need a few more Skill Points in order to unlock the “Astute Author” ability. See you all next week.

A Question of Immersion

Immersion. The ability to lose yourself in an experience. This is something that many (not all for some reason) games strive for. Losing yourself in your character until a brief glance away from the TV and reveals that you where supposed to be in bed a few hours ago. That's an experience. Something that more games should try to achieve. Something that is pretty painful and pretty obvious when it fails. There are a multitude of ways to immerse the player in a game. A compelling story. Interesting characters. A well designed environment. And many, many more. Basically what I'm trying to say is that you want to make the game compelling and that there are many different ways to accomplish this. It's also worth noting that an immersive game doesn’t have to be a perfect game but that it will usually be a good game. All that said today we're going to look at one of the little things that can really break immersion. Technology. As in the question we're basically asking is: Does the technology in our game match up with our story and the environments that we're encountering?

So first up is the bad side of technological immersion in 'Killzone 2' and presumably 'Killzone' and 'Killzone 3' (wouldn't know, didn't play them). Here the game places you as the puppet-master of stalwart space marine Sgt. Tomas 'Sev' Sevchenko (thanks Killzone Wiki) who along with his thick as mud buddies murder the hell out of a ton of space Nazis. Seriously that's pretty much the entire game. It's an incredibly linear story punctuated by some sub-par voice acting and a set of enemies that are a hell of a lot more sympathetic than a cartoonishly evil Empire should be. However that's not what kills the immersion. No, all of that is what makes it a bad game. What kills the immersion for me is its weapon selection. You see, the game is set in the 24^th century (thanks again Killzone Wiki) and yet for some reason you are, with rare exception, using modern (that would be 21^th century) weapons in machine guns, sub-machine guns, a combat knife and a pistol (usually a freaking revolver no less). Now it isn't verboten for a game set way in the future to have its characters using modern weapons but it does warrant some sort of explanation. 'Killzone 2', to my knowledge, completely skips out on that much needed explanation in favor of blasting more space Nazis into bits. If it's the future I want futuristic (i.e. something that requires some semblance of an imagination) stuff to play with. If it's the 24^th century then I do not want a generic gray-brown shooter. I want lasers and spaceships that don't suck and stuff. In short I don't want a game that likely started off as a 'Modern Warfare' clone of some sort until some focus group suggested that they move the setting into the future in order to differentiate it from the game it was copying.

Next we have a very immersive open world post-apocalyptic game in 'Fallout 3'. For comparison sake it is set in 2277 (~200 years after a nuclear war; thanks Fallout Wiki). Although 'Fallout 3' has the same oversights* that every other post-apocalyptic video game, movie or TV series I can think does it also has roughly the same weapon selection as 'Killzone 2'. However 'Fallout 3' does a much better job of explaining things to the player. Namely that the world essentially ended, halted technological development and forced people to scavenge for resources, weapons, etc. That's the sort of context I'm looking for and it's also the sort of back-story that makes a game more immersive. Now obviously 'Fallout 3' is immersive for reasons other than its explanation behind the technology found in the game but I'm simply bringing that up here as a counter-point to a game that botches this topic so badly that it draws the player out of the experience.

Looking at the details of 'Killzone 2' and 'Fallout 3' juxtaposed like that its easy to see that the devil's in the details with regards to thing like providing your players context for their actions and abilities. It's a small effort to explain why something is or is not possible/available and in doing so you've (likely) greatly enhanced the immersive experience of your game. See you next week.

*The most major of these oversights would be the complete absence of bicycles after a nuclear holocaust. I can't even begin to count the number of post-apocalyptic settings where everyone is fighting over gasoline or failing that where people simply feel the need to walk everywhere. In these situations the existence or acknowledgment of bicycles would prove inconvenient from a plot perspective so they're ignored. Also while the internet seems ambivalent with regards to the expiration of ammunition I have a hard time believing the the ammo and weapons found in many post-apocalyptic scenarios would, given the conditions with which they've been "stored", still be functional.